Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

Category:DeMoulas Market Basket

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of organization. TM 22:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in Bosra

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Category:Buildings and structures in Bosra

Category:Buildings and structures in Biała Podlaska

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Category:Buildings and structures in Biała Podlaska

Category:Sri Lankan people by status

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete because there is nothing to merge or listify. MER-C 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: contains one subcategory, Sri Lankan award winners‎, which doesnt seem like a status to me. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Child prodigies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted several times at cfd. Deleted in
Oculi (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Support deletion as per nom. Impossible to meaningfully define, or to structure in any useful manner. There is already a category for Category:Child musicians which just about makes sense. Of the articles listing child prodigies, I identify List of child prodigies and List of child music prodigies. Both of these are absolute shambles with no apparent criteria, no structure and poor citations (both in number of citations and quality of the citations that exist), and should imo be deleted themselves.--Smerus (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree with Smerus.
talk) 22:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • We should not move the problem to a different place, so no they shouldn't go back to Category:Giftedness. Rather, biographies should be purged from Category:Giftedness. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was precisely because I didn't think that Category:Giftedness was a place for biographies that I created the category. I entirely agree with all the points made above but I dont think deleting the category solves the problem. All the stuff about subjective assessments is still in all the articles, and the lack of a common category actually makes it harder for anyone to monitor it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way it would be helpful when someone checks if all people in this category are also in the list article before the category is going to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. Some, (maybe many, i haven't a lifetime to check) are very doubtful 'prodigies' - e.g. Fu Mingxia. It's all so subjective that the list articles should also be deleted. List of child music prodigies is an ill-referenced, complete ragbag, with 'real' virtuosi mixed up with people who won TV contests, Asian and pop musicians mixed with classical EU musicians, the subheadings confused and inconsistent, and many notable classical names missing (Joachim, Alkan, etc.) None of this stuff is 'encyclopaedic' - just quasi-informational spam.--Smerus (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should defer this discussion until there is a decision about the list articles. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists are not nominated for deletion so there is nothing to wait for. Besides if the lists would be deleted at some point of time, the categories most certainly should. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Prodigy" is a very subjective term. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Huge sigh> I dearly wish we could keep this category... But as has been amply pointed out, it is simply, entirely too subjective. If only there were a U.N. agency in charge of making such designations! Alas, we have no choice but to Delete this, and rely instead on the many subcategories for notable children by occupation. Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a lot of articles about children who are notable (and well documented to be so) only for going to university at the age of 11 or the like. For example
    March Tian Boedihardjo, Colin Carlson, Tristan Pang. Are they to be left uncategorised? Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Category:Child academic students would be much more to the point for them than the vague Category:Child prodigies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP has a clear, and sourced, definition of child prodigy: 'A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer.' Kids who get into university early are not child prodigies by this definition. Nor are child actors, or most child musical performers.--Smerus (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of those sources talks about children who have "mastered a challenging skill at the level of an adult professional". I cant see how that excludes actors or musicians. Nor is talking about "meaningful output" a very objective measure. But it does appear to me that the term child prodigy, however unsatisfactory it may be, is widely used in reputable sources. And I dont see how we can leave such articles in the encyclopedia and deny them a category. Rathfelder (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Howard the Duck

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Likely to be a permanent
defining characteristic of these films. Also, saying Howard is 'featured' is a bit of a stretch. Folks who want to know what films he appears in can read his article. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support deletion per nom. Her Pegship (speak) 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he appears in a few films, he is only "featured" in one. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not routinely categorize films by individual supporting or minor character who appears in them. There can be occasional exceptions for certain characters who are the core of the franchise, but we don't keep catting for every other character — Superman-franchise films are catted for Superman, for example, but not for Lois Lane or Perry White or Jimmy Olsen. The only one of these films that's
    defined by the presence of Howard the Duck is the eponymous one, and a category for one film is not needed — the other three films don't belong in this category at all, because he's just a minor character in them and not the centre of their franchise. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legal categories of people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a more conventional format of "people by". Marcocapelle (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Museum of Dance Hall of Fame inductees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. MER-C 10:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEFINING
)
The
here in a separate list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment The hall of fame article has two templates in the header:
-The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2016)
-This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2016)
Before any other actions are taken, these issues need to be resolved. This article may need deleted if it can not meet GNG. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added enough reliable sources to the hall of fame article to close the notability issues and remove the templates. I'm going to ignore the things I disagree with such as
    WP:OCAWARD, DELETE/LISTIFY, and say that I am on the fence with the hall of fame. It doesn't seem like a hall of fame that is very active. I am really waiting to see what the proposer has to say now that the notability issues are met, and the hall's inductee list has been located on the live site rather than on an archive link. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you very much for the cleanup on the National Museum of Dance and Hall of Fame main article, that definitely helped to improve the encyclopedia! My concern is with the presence of the category on the individual biography articles, not based on the quality of the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, however the
WP:DEFINING policy says that the characteristic is based on reliable sources so the subject now has them and the characteristic is based on the subject. If I am applying that correctly... dawnleelynn(talk) 01:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Dawnleelynn: Being verifiable, is certainly a pre-requisite to being defining. The second section of WP:DEFINING on categorizing people clarifies that not everything should be categorized once someone becomes famous. For instance Yul Brynner's baldness is verifiable--and that reference probalby dates me. (Actually, the third section provides a much better overview of categories and CFD than I did!). RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have actually been thinking about this one still. It is stated that many of the articles mention the award in the lead. However, I think that part of the
    WP:DEFINING applies here. "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" Just because the induction is mentioned in most of the leads doesn't mean it is appropriate. I actually think it is not appropriate. I did a test case run through of some of the inductees. I did not see one that mentioned the induction in the lead. Most mentioned it at the end among other awards that were more notable, if they mentioned it all. I do not see this hall of fame induction as appropriate to mention in the lead therefore. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If there are "Good" quality articles by different editors that mention the award (or association) in the lede, that can be a sign that the subject matter experts consider the category defining. It's not a perfect standard because often there aren't many or any Good articles and what is there are dominated by one or two editors. (In this case, it doesn't work at all because an anonymous editor added the HOF to the ledes of all the articles and then quit Wikipedia.) Another sign of defining-ness is whether the award is the top one for that country or industry (no just the top HOF but the top award overall.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation on the "Good" quality articles and the appropriateness of mentions in the Lead. I will definitely keep that in mind. Also, it is helpful to know what is the top award in the field. Where award means award or honor or hall or fame, etc. For example, the area where I do the most of my article creation, I do know what is the most prestigious honor. Thank a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 01:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, many articles do not even mention this Hall of Fame at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Category:Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_30&oldid=1073191923"