Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20

Category:West Coast of the United States-related lists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Category:West Coast of the United States-related lists

Category:German military personnel killed in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

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, merging list article of those killed to Category:German military personnel of the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) (and also Category:German military personnel killed in action and Category:Military personnel killed in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14)). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are no actual people listed in this category, only the article about such death. Therefore, such a category is pointless. Pppery ( talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (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:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage

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: split as proposed by Laurel Lodged. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As it stands, the category is highly misleading. Apart from a few LGBT conservatives (which should probably be purged or split apart), most others criticize the concept of marriage or its legal privilege in whole. Arguing from a left-wing position, some of them might be critical of the LGBT community's focus on marriage equality, but clearly don't advocate denying LGBT people a same-sex marriage, and aren't affiliated with conservatism, as the parent category ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage suggests. PanchoS ( talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but add parentage per Lauren Lodged, and purge of individuals When we are categorizing by a movement (LGBT, not LGBT's) opposing/favoring XYZ, we cannot have individuals otherwise think of the clutter at a possible Category:Christian opposition to same-sex marriage where literally thousands of politicians, entertainers, or other public figures are (or were - these categories are permanent, lest they be "current" and trivial ones) on record for both Christianity and opposition to same-sex marriage. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Purge if Kept The individual biography articles shouldn't be here since we're defining people by their stance on a single issue where that doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support nomination + purging, oppose splitting. The category currently contains (1) articles about a radical LGBT movement that is against marriage in general hence also against same-sex marriage and (2) a few LGBT individuals who are against same-sex marriage specifically. As we usually don't categorize individual people by their opinions on a single issue, only the first set of articles would survive in a category, which is exactly according the original nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Anti-marriage and opposition to Gay marriage are two different topics. I suggest having both categories, for both topics are noteworthy. 186.29.123.214 ( talk) 14:23, 5 August 2016 (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:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links

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 to Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links, but I'll hold off on making the change until Anomie has a chance to update the bot. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: AnomieBOT will automatically add colons to accidental categories on such pages also. Pppery ( talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DexDor: I think that all of your descriptions give too little information. If the bot is later changed to fix accidental file links, then the category can be renamed to Category:Pages to be automatically checked for accidental category, language, and file links. You are crossing the bridge before you get to it. Pppery ( talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, Pppery is right, so let's just go with the original nomination for now. nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with using the category text (rather than the category name) to define the details of what the bot does with the category? DexDor (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
... and what's wrong with having a descriptive category name? Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links suggests to me that the bot fixes wikilinks that point to the wrong target, which is obviously something a bot can't do. Pppery ( talk) 19:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Pages automatically checked for incorrect links is best, since as noted above: (1) it includes more than language links, (2) it may include more than what it's including now, and we shouldn't have to bother with another CFD, (3) and the proposed name describes it reasonably well, it's significantly shorter than anything might conceivably encompass everything. Using the category text to define it will be unambiguous, plus (1) it's more easily changed than the category name, and (2) descriptive text atop a category doesn't affect relevant articles, but an all-encompassing category name will be long enough to be unwieldy. Nyttend ( talk) 13:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Pages automatically checked for incorrect links summarizes the purpose of this category concisely, and there's always the theoretical possibility that more incorrect link types will get added at some point. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:59, 29 August 2016 (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:Academics from Tacoma, Washington

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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Also propose merging- Category:Chefs from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and
Category:Physicians from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All have three or less entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep SMALLCAT is a rationale for categories with "no potential for growth" which does not apply to these growing categories about living people. Plus the generally accepted minimum for a category is three, which the chefs category already meets. I easily found enough entries to populate the other two categories with 3-4 entries. - Brianhe ( talk) 22:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, agree that smallcat does not apply to these cats as they do have potential for growth, and thanks to Brianhe for further populating the cats. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all, tho for difft reasons in each case.
  1. Academics: merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.
    In the case of the academics, it is an irrelevant intersection by location (see WP:OCLOCATION). There is no indication that their notability as academics is related to their being from Tacoma. Their academic notability may be connected with being American academics, or with being academics at a particular university, or in a particular discipline; but not to being academics from Tacoma. Regardless of the size of the category, irrelevant intersections are a very bad type of category.
  2. Chefs merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and Category:Chefs from Washington (state).
    Chefs may be notable for being at a particular location, though many move around a lot, so the precise location may not be WP:DEFINING. However, the only by-state sub-category of Category:American chefs is the Washington category, also created by Brianhe, so I am unsure whether even it is appropriate. The absence of an existing by-state category should have prompted Brianhe to question whether a finer division was really appropriate.
    In total, there are currently 543 pages in Category:American chefs and its subcats, of which 140 are notable as TV chefs, and hence probably not defined by location. If, despite those caveats, it is considered appropriate to subcat the American chefs geographically, then a by-state split would produce an average only 10 per state. Going to a finer level than that simply impedes navigation.
  3. Physicians merge to Category:Physicians from Washington (state) and Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.
    Per WP:OCLOCATION, I see no evidence that any of these physicians are defined by being from Tacoma rather than from elsewhere in WA. Furthermore, Category:Physicians from Washington (state) currently contains only 5 pages, plus the 4 in this sub-cat. Splitting a total of 9 articles in this way just impedes navigation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 14:01, 20 July 2016 (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:Television personalities

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The difference between personality and people does not seem to be enough relevant to keep two different categories. I fail to see the difference in scope between the two. This discussion also concerns Television personalities by nationality and its subcategories, which duplicate Television people by nationality. @ Doczilla and Peterkingiron: you expressed doubts on the relevance of this category in a previous CfD. Place Clichy ( talk) 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
A "Television personality" is someone who has regularly appeared on television as themselves, in particular hosting or presenting shows." Johnbod ( talk) 15:11, 28 July 2016 (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:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

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.
First off, when a page is deleted at an XFD discussion, that decision can be overturned only at WP:DRV. Talk page discussions are not as widely notified, so they can't overrule the broader consensus at CFD.
So the nominator Good Ol’factory was being generously forgiving in bringing the category here, rather than speedy deleting it per WP:G4. But here we are.
The consensus of this discussion is that if kept, the category needs a massive purge. However, those who investigated found that only 3 pages actually belonged in this category. Per WP:SMALLCAT, 3-article categories rarely survive a CFD discussion ... so on balance, I find that those favouring deletion have arguments more firmly based in policy. That amounts to a consensus for deletion.
Editors are of course quite entitled to disagree with a consensus decision, but should respect it unless and until it is overturned. If anyone wants to challenge this decision, please use the proper venue: WP:Deletion review. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category was recently discussed and deleted: see here. Re-creation of it was proposed and discussed here, on the article talk page. I'm just bringing it here to verify that there is consensus that re-creation is OK, since it was so recently deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2016 (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:Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2007. Rather than nominating it for speedy deletion of re-created material, I'm bringing it here to see if consensus has changed. In my opinion, it's still overcategorization of the performer by performance kind. The information is also contained in List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition models and a bunch of templates, which divide them by year. It seems to me that these are sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2016 (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:Gluten-free restaurants

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. The one remaining article after a purge is Thrive Cafe. I will leave it to usual editorial discretion to decide whether it belongs in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Gluten-free cuisine, now renamed to Category:Gluten-free diet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:PERFCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
These aren't restaurants that are gluten free as an overall concept, they are overwhelmingly restaurants that have gluten free options available on a broader menu. It's like having Category:Restaurants that have Chicken Kiev on their dinner menu. Only one of the articles is entirely gluten-free but that would leave a 1 article category and I'm not sure it's defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The notified Epeefleche as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge Remaining Article I'm fine with putting the one remaining article in the Category:Gluten-free cuisine you just created; thanks for setting that up! RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: Sure we would, if it's an organic, vegan, gluten-free and dairy-free restaurant, unless there's some adequate category for free-of-all-of-this restaurants. IMO, the only valid reason to delete it is size, and that may change. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • We shouldn't categorize by all possible menu characteristics per WP:NONDEF. I'm surely okay with one menu characteristic as a restaurant's defining characteristic (e.g. a restaurant serving Chinese food), but not with four. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:22, 27 July 2016 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_20&oldid=1074816648"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE