Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12

[edit]

Category:Contemporary African Artists

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there's certainly an established practice of permitting Category:Contemporary artists to be subcategorized by artistic endeavor (sculptors, painters, etc.) and by nationality, there's no real precedent for a "contemporary artists from an entire continent" subcategory. And even if we did want to keep this, it would still need to be renamed "African contemporary artists", in accordance with how our naming conventions for categories work, rather than this. So I'd prefer to delete, but it has to be either deleted or renamed and cannot just stand at this title either way. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2014 (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.

I missed out on the discussion, unfortunately. I see the decision's already been taken but I thought I'd just chip in that Bearcat's suggestion of renaming it "African contemporary artists" better articulates what I was attempting to with the previous title. On a perhaps 'chuckleworthy' note, ..for me at least, it also kind of resolves an issue some artists of African origin(s) might have with their art being classed as 'African' (they touch on that in the last bit of this: http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/the-africa-channel-presents-in-depth-6-part-doc-series-on-african-art-watch-episode-1-20150102, just in case anyone's curious) ...labels/terms of reference are tricky things... OsizUrUnkle (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peter Paul Rubens images

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's great to collect images of works by Rubens on Wikimedia Commons - but seems a bit misplaced here. Only two images... Spinster (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2014 (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:Slovakian sportspeople stubs

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category already exists using the proper demonym (Category:Slovak sportspeople stubs). Dawynn (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2014 (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:Slovakian winter sports biography stubs

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow the proper demonym. There are a few other existing templates that can help fill this category. Will move those once the category name changes. Dawynn (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (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:Italian novelist

[edit]
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: keep. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to meet WP:CATRED's criteria of "frequently [had] articles assigned to [it] accidentally, or [is] otherwise re-created over and over", nor does the title contain punctuation or diacritics that would lead to common errors. Is it really worth keeping? BDD (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a redirect, is it really worth deleting? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC).
  • Neutral A redirect that nothing points to. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFD isn't really the place to discuss the suitability or unsuitability of a {{categoryredirect}}. And how frequently this does or doesn't "have articles assigned to it accidentally" is impossible for us to verify, precisely because the whole point of these categories is that a bot automatically cleans up non-empty categoryredirects to correct the category declarations — meaning that they get emptied out before most human editors would even notice that there's a problem. And as an editor who frequently works with the maintenance of uncategorized and/or miscategorized articles, I can attest that declaring categories in the singular form (e.g. "Musician" instead of Category:Musicians, "Novelist" instead of Category:Novelists, etc.) is actually one of the most common forms of categorization error. There are no drawbacks to keeping this — but even if just one user in all of Wikipedia history ever misfiles an article in here instead of the correct target, a bot will catch that and fix it without any individual editor having to do anything about it at all. Maximum gain for no pain. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, should category redirects be used as frequently as regular ones? This may sound OSE-ish, but it's sincere. I know they've been created only sparingly as a matter of practice, but I don't know if this was ever decided as a matter of broad consensus. Also, category redirects show up variously at CfD and RfD. This is a less well established practice, but they're generally discussed here since they aren't true redirects and editors who focus on categories are more likely to be interested in them. --BDD (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with what is stated at WP:CATRED in that I think it is far too restrictive; I don't think a history of repeated recreation is a requirement for doing a category redirect. This encourages a scenario of requiring people to waste time before implementing a simple solution. I think it is far more sensible to use redirects wherever another category name is a clear candidate for being mistaken as a missing venue when the true category is already present. SFB 13:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: category redirects may be doing a useful function even if nothing currently points to them. There is a bot that re-categorises any pages placed in redirected categories. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 23 December 2014 (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:CBC Television shows

[edit]
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: reverse merge to Category:CBC Television shows. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cleaning up possible test edits - User:Garfieldboy78 moved "CBC network shows" to "CBC Television shows", and then recreated "CBC network shows" (which still had hundreds of articles) as blank. Net result is that "CBC Television shows" is a redundant duplicate, but it has the nine years of edit history. It should be moved back. McGeddon (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've no position on the appropriate category name, but whatever the outcome I think the category needs some scope laid out in prose. Is it intended to include ALL series that aired on CBC or original programs? If the latter, it might be worth renaming the category to clarify this, a la Category:Cartoon Network original programs, which was recently renamed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What value does "network" add to the simpler "CBC shows"? That's certainly debatable, but it's a normal naming format that was the accepted standard at the time this was created — see also Category:CBS network shows, Category:NBC network shows, Category:Fox network shows, Category:PBS network shows, etc. It might be worth trying for a more consistent naming convention across our entire "television shows by network" category tree (which is absolutely a dog's breakfast), but this one isn't an isolated case that's subject to a unique set of naming rules. So it's entirely beyond the scope of this discussion, and would require a broader consensus to rename all the categories that are using that format.
Why do we use "CBC" instead of "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation"? For the same reason we use CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, ITV, HBO, HGTV, etc., in those services' respective programming categories instead of expanding the initialisms: it's what the network calls itself on the air, so using the full phrase instead would run counter to both user expectation and WP:COMMONNAME rules. (I'll admit that ABC runs counter to that logic, but that's because there are two ABCs — one in the US and one in Australia — competing for the same initialism. I'd personally favour renaming those categories to "ABC (U.S.)" and "ABC (Australia)" instead, but that's a debate for another time.)
Why use "shows" instead of "programs"? Again: nothing requires that format over other ones, but lots of other categories are also named that way (I already highlighted four of them in my first section.) A broader consensus to move all of them to a more consistent format might be welcome, but again falls outside the scope of this discussion since the CBC isn't subject to any unique considerations.
Stations that refer to themselves as CBC should retain "CBC" Well, the thing about that statement is that it completely undermines your entire argument that we should be expanding CBC to the full phrase instead of the initialism: CBC Television is a service that refers to itself on the air as CBC rather than as "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation", so even if we did decide to follow your proposed rules instead, this category would still get to keep the initialism anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2014 (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:Palghar district geography stubs

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tiny stub category, with a similarly tiny permanent category. Delete category and upmerge template until the standard number (60) of stub articles tagged. Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2014 (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:New Year's on television

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other Category:Television specials by holiday ViperSnake151  Talk  04:56, 12 December 2014 (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:Haiti actor stubs

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Perm category is tiny. Not enough to justify a stub category. Delete category and upmerge template to Category:Haitian people stubs. Dawynn (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2014 (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:New Zealand radio station stubs

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tried to fill, but the articles just aren't there. Delete category. Keep template, but upmerge to Category:New Zealand media stubs. Dawynn (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2014 (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.

Haitian media categories

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Propose deleting these tiny stub categories. Upmerge template to Category:Haitian media stubs. This will still leave the Haitian media category severely undersized, but better to have one tiny, growable category than 3 micro categories. Dawynn (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing these days is an increasing (but wrong) presumption that the stub-category system is meant to be as heavily developed and narrowcasted as the regular content category system is — I see a rapidly increasing profusion of three or four item stubcats getting created without evidence of the stub project's approval, on what appears to be a belief that every content category automatically gets to have its own directly corresponding stub category. But that's not how we do things — stub categories are created on the basis of whether they're justified on size grounds, not on an "if this qualifies for a content category then it automatically gets its own dedicated stub cat too" model, and for that very reason they have to be preapproved by the stub project rather than just created on one individual user's whim. Delete and upmerge entries to Category:Haitian media stubs per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (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:Bohemian athletics biography stubs

[edit]
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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This stub category is entirely premature, as there is only one tagged article. The template is also quite premature. Propose deleting category, and renaming template to a more general {{Bohemia-sport-bio-stub}}. Propose double-tagging the sole article with a 2nd tag specific to the sport. The Bohemia sport bio template can upmerge to Category:European sportspeople stubs. Dawynn (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2014 (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:Armenian people of Iranian descent

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no one in this category at all. Hovhannes Karapetyan 01:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment -- These are potentially legitiamte categories but I am not voting to keep, because of the multiple meaning of Armenian, which can be a nationality (of the present Armenia) or an ethnicity (related to religion) among people of Iran and Ottoman successor states. There are Armenian people in Turkey, Syria and Iran, who have lived there for generations and never been near the present Armenia. I would also resist any attempt to split the ethnicity by period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why have a category with no pages? We need to actually have pages of people who are Armenian but are of Iranian descent. Jackninja5 (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2014 (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:Songs with nonsensical lyrics

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How is this category encyclopedic? There is not exactly an objective way of determining whether a song lyric is nonsense. Hoops gza (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Nonsense rhyme" is a thing. So the category seems encyclopaedic. There may or may not be difficulty deciding on membership, but there is no indication on the talk page that this is the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete. What is nonsensical is in the ear of the beholder. I note Hey Jude and I am the Walrus, but neither are nonsensical to the writers. I also note that there are little or no references to say most of the songs are have nonsensical lyrics. As a grouping this is no better than linking songs by forenames used in song titles, which I am pleased to say was deleted some time ago.--Richhoncho (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective and not defining ("Gunter glieben glauten globen" comes to mind as nonsense, as do many of the song mondegreens, Revolution 9, and frankly, and as subjectively as those selected in the category, most songs can be so classified by someone who gets no sense from the lyrics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to subjectivity — there actually are significant inclusion problems here. Right off the top, the category's basic description is This is a category for songs which only feature nonsensical lyrics — out of which I'm going to draw your attention back to the word ONLY. Keep that word in mind. So let's start with The Band's "Chest Fever" — what Robbie Robertson meant the song to be about is admittedly a bit less than fully obvious, but every word is completely comprehensible English. Then let's take on "Hey Jude", which is also a completely comprehensible song whose only "nonsense" is the fact that late in the song Paul McCartney starts singing a rhythmic "na-na-na-na". What else have we got: "Rock Lobster" because Fred Schneider vamps about a couple of imaginary animals; "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" because of a vocal rhythm track; "Song 2" because woohoo; "Smells Like Teen Spirit" because mulatto, albino, mosquito, libido; "Strangers in the Night" because doo-be-doo-be-doo, "Mrs. Robinson" because coo-coo-ca-choo. So the category has been added for WP:OR reasons to quite a few songs that (a) are completely parsable English but one random person decided they couldn't figure out what the song meant (a criterion which would thereby rope in an extremely high percentage of all the pop and rock songs recorded in the last 50 years), (b) are mostly parsable English but feature one made-up word or vocal sound effect anywhere in (or even just behind) the lyric, (c) completely comprehensible songs in which the singer na-na-nas or wo-wo-wos or shooby-doobys (which would also rope in an extremely high percentage of all the pop and rock songs recorded in the last 50 years). So what else goes in here — everything the Cocteau Twins ever wrote, Steve Miller's "The Joker" because pompatus, any song on which Ella Fitzgerald ever scatted, "Louie Louie" because even though the lyrics make perfect sense on the page you can't make heads or tails of them in the recorded version? I'm sorry, no. Rich Farmbrough is correct that nonsense rhyme is a thing, but that's what Category:Nonsense poetry is for. In fact, if you properly applied this category's stated inclusion criteria to its own contents, nearly all of the articles would have to be taken out — because very few of them feature only (or even primarily) nonsense lyrics. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_12&oldid=1083678018"