Category:Articles created or improved by Dundee Oral Health Wikipedia Group 2016
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.
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize (talk pages of) articles by which groups of editors have edited them (this is the only "Articles created or improved by ..." category in En Wp) - over time it would lead to some pages being in dozens/hundreds of such categories. See previous CFDs (e.g.
this). Note: It would be quite appropriate for a wikiproject to use one of the pages belonging to that wikiproject to keep a list of pages they've edited. DexDor(talk)20:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP As creator, I followed the lead of other groups who are using talk page categories in templates to identify on talk pages and in categories the articles created by off wiki editing events/groups. For example see
Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism 2016 for another group using a similar template and category. See previous years
Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism events It is incredibly helpful to notify other users that a member of a group has edited the article. Plus it assists with quickly finding the articles created by an group for monitoring the progress of the editing group. There is no reason to eliminate the talk page templates and category when they are useful today just because of potential issues that MIGHT occur later. Sydney Poore/
FloNight♥♥♥♥00:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Other similar templates that create categories
Template:Educational assignment that was used for classroom assignments for years prior to the new system developed by Wiki Ed Foundation. Sydney Poore/
FloNight♥♥♥♥
See
WP:OSE. Afaics every time categories like this have been brought to CFD they've been deleted - e.g.
in February. Why do you think it is "incredibly helpful to notify other users that a member of a group has edited the article"? - especially in several years time. This category currently puts pages such as
Talk:Lymphatic system under categories such as
Category:Wikipedia events and
Category:Wikipedians in Dundee (note: when this category was created it put the pages in different categories such as
Category:Unassessed medicine articles which was also incorrect).
The unusual categorization caused by this category disrupts/complicates maintenance activities; I use category intersection queries to detect pages that are at a strange combinations of categories etc (which for talk pages is often an incorrect reference to a category in a discussion -
example fix). This category causes "false positives" during such analysis. DexDor(talk)06:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello DexDor, I did not add those categories that you mention when I created the category. See it was added by someone else later.
[1]. Perhaps, the better solution would be to remove the unneeded categories rather than to delete this useful template and category that makes it easy to monitor the articles created or improved by an Editing Group. Sydney Poore/
FloNight♥♥♥♥14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm well aware of the history of the category. Removing some of the parent categories would be an improvement, but a better solution would be to use a list (e.g. like
this) rather than a category. DexDor(talk)18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
If such categories are kept then where should we draw the line - e.g. would a category for "Articles created or improved by <editor> in 2016" be ok? When the initiative is over should the template/cat tag be removed? - and if not would (talk pages of) articles (especially those popular with such groups) gradually accrue more and more categories? DexDor(talk)18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, the fact that these articles have been edited by a certain group of people is trivial information, I don't even see a meaningful maintenance purpose here.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete ownership issues - not everyone who creates of improves an article (or group thereof) gets any credit other than the CCBYSA or GFDL provides. If we give the nod to some but not others, we're not being fair or assuming that the licenses apply to all.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:38, 19 May 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.
eSports
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.
Rename to match article. I have no opinion or knowledge on which way is "correct", but have to admit I hate in-word capitalization enough to oppose this form in principal, but making it consistent with the article is worth while, even if it leads to horrible orthography.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:53, 14 May 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:Hobbyist organizations
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.
I think so. Clubs and Societies are not terribly well defined in thenselves, but I don't think separating out Hobbyist organisations helps.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
keep Obviously, a hobbyist organization is devoted to the practice of a particular hobby. Maybe most "clubs and societies" are such, but it's the latter's lack of clarity which is the problem here.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
keep keep as a satisfactory way for helping users to navigate among the articles and sub-categories contained herein
Hmains (
talk)
03:42, 18 May 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:Burial sites of the Burr family
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.
Nominator's rationale: Burial location isn't a defining characteristic of a family. Only entry is a city, and subcategory has two Burrs buried there.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I am sure we got rid of something similar not long ago. It is in the nature of a Performance category, which we do not allow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:14, 10 May 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:Anglican bishops by diocese in India
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, since the category doesn't look like a container category, there is no reason to add "by diocese" in the name. Change parenting accordingly.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep but diffuse. The 12 sub-categories seem to be correct contents of the nominated category; it only needs the biography articles in it to be moved up or down. –
FayenaticLondon13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Query I'm not sure what exactly is broken here. "bishops by diocese in" is a common construct. What's wrong with this particular example?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have any objections against splitting in this case, I'm just curious how it would solve the addressed problem of having articles in categories that are supposedly container categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The only remaining direct members are four lists of bishops which seem to be proxies for diocese articles which haven't been created. They could be moved into the corresponding "bishops of diocese" categories.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Split into
Category:Bishops of the Church of North India by diocese and
Category:Bishops of the Church of South India by diocese. This involves an element of anachronism in that these churches were formed by the amalgamation of the Anglican Church with the Methodists and perhaps others. Before that, I assume that there was a single Anglican church, but I do not think that matters unduly: this applies the principle we use on alumni categories for merged or renamed colleges - or rather applies it in reverse. The two new parent categories can be direct children of a worldwide Anglican bishop by province category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure that the only Anglican predecessors were missionary bishops of the Church of England, who don't seem to appear in these categories.
Mangoe (
talk)
11:10, 24 May 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:Economic works
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.
Oppose. Suppose we would have
Category:Metallic works and
Category:Works about metal. Metallic works cannot break out of the material they are made of - the suffixes -ic and -ical imply a defining quality: made of pure metal. Analogically,
Category:Economic works categorizes works with a purely economic content, they belong to the discipline of economics, they cannot break out of these confines. By contrast,
Category:Works about economics transcend the field of economics (or, before, metallurgy) :
I'm not following why e.g.
Category:Economics books, which is a subcat of the nominated category, would only contain books with a purely economic content. Books can just as well deal with economic history, poverty etc. The same applies for radio and TV programs. By the way, who decides what is purely economic content? - that would require quite a bit of OR.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
"In" or "about" economics, that's not much of a difference. The important difference here is that the category divides "by medium".
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
To begin with I wonder if Anti-globalization books are economics books, they are primarily books about a political movement. But for the sake of this category discussion, let's take another ideology-based category that has more to do with economics, like Marxism, then I don't see why books about Marxism are any different (in terms of category assignment) from books about wealth distribution. Do you perhaps aim for a category of works about Philosophy of economics as a topic within Philosophy of science? (but then you should more clearly indicate so).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
There you go, this is the "about economics" category according to your personal definitions. All other categories can be left as "about economics" according to common language and you may translate those for yourself as "in economics".
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment
Category:Works of art -
Category:Paintings, ... ... ... = artistic works = produced within the rules/logic of the discipline : IN the discipline - artistic in approach.
Rename differently These are all literature and media, and are better so called. No one has done a ballet or opera on an economics theme, nor are they likely to. We seem to be moving in the wrong direction with these categories. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Johnbod (
talk •
contribs)
I too would prefer to simply delete and merge to
Category:Works about economics, which already has works about economics of various types, as does Stefanomione's
Category:Economic works. I should add that I'm generally not a big fan of 'works about x by y', and which I recall was part of the reason that led to Stefanomione's first community sanction, several years ago. So I'd prefer to keep it simple here, though certainly some form of merge/rename is desirable. I say delete and merge without leaving a redirect, because I do think it's important that we don't litter Wikipedia categorization with the remnants of a now-banned editor's prolific and disruptive legacy.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:07, 31 May 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:August Media Holdings
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. If an article is ever created, then categorization of the television series as being of August Media Holdings could be reconsidered.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I would lean toward deletion until we get a main article or more contents. @
Fuddle: Company categories can exist without a main article but it's preferable to have one.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:26, 11 May 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:Vosges
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.
Nominator's rationale: With the eponymous
Vosges mountains being
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the category and many of its subcategories are no less ambiguous than its already disambiguated main article
Vosges (department), so all we can do here is bringing the categories in line with article namespace.
PanchoS (
talk)
00:28, 10 May 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.