Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 29 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25

[edit]

Category:Referees 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: merge category to Category:Sportspeople stubs, as it still only contains 30 pages; and rename Template:Referee-stub to Template:Sports-official-bio-stub (over new redirect created by Pegship). – Fayenatic London 14:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, created out of process, and the name doesn't conform to stub category norms. Her Pegship (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:58, 2 December 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:Priests trained at King's College London

[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 to Category:Alumni of the Theological Department of King's College London. The merge votes at the end were mostly added before additional facts were clarified, namely that the Theological Department of King's College London is confusingly named and no longer part of King's College London. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it makes much sense to sub-categorise in this way. In that case you could end up with no end of sub-cats based on profession. This List of King's College London alumni already does a pretty good job of listing alumni by profession, and I think the newly created category is superfluous. Uhooep (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged for discussion. Now that it has been, it should remain open for a fresh seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as originator: when editing a lot of priests' (and bishops') articles, I notice their university education and their ministerial training aren't always distinguished, so I've been trying to clarify that information where possible. Creating this category was to help with the distinction in KCL's case: because while some of these individuals took their first undergraduate degrees at KCL (and were trained for ministry elsewhere), there will be a number who were there training for ministry with the separate-ish KCL Theological Dept. Some will have done both. DBD 21:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • View unchanged -- A person my get a BA from one university, a masters from another and a doctorate from a third. He then is an alumnus of all three. We do not need to split out one particular qualification, such as ordination training. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge One problem ignored is that this is not a by training institution but by profesion category. We do not seperate by profession and we do not in general categorize differently based on the level of degree the person received at the institution involved. Categories are not meant to convey all the information available in an article. This is too fine a distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 4 November 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:Administration

[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 The contents are such that this is the best way forward. Timrollpickering 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. In article space Administration is a disambiguation page. Possibly turn the category page into a category disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some articles could usefully be moved down into e.g. Public administration, but others span the general topic across government, business and non-profit sectors. Mind you, it might be possible to move each article currently in this category into either one or multiple sub-categories, in which case I would have no objection to making it a category disambiguation page listing most of the current sub-cats (excluding Dioceses). – Fayenatic London 16:37, 30 October 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:Directors in Tulu cinema

[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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very small category Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 25 October 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:Canadian writers of Chinese 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: merge. (Some articles can be double upmerged if needed. But from my quick check, most will not need to be.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More of Mannrheimo's excessive overcategorization on unnecessary ethnic overspecificity. While the general state of being of broadly Asian descent is relevant in conjunction with being a Canadian writer, it is not WP:DEFINING to intersect that with individual national backgrounds like Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese — Canadian literature does not treat Kim Thúy differently from Madeleine Thien or Kerri Sakamoto or Shyam Selvadurai on the basis of ethnic differences, but treats them all as "Asian Canadian writers", the end. As well, many of the resulting categories violate WP:SMALLCAT with just one or two or four entries. Merges should also watch out for whether the person is appropriately filed in "Canadian people of X descent" or not, but there's no need for subcategories which cross that tree with the writers tree. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge eac into Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent and Canadian people of Fooian descent‎ (i.e upmerge Category:Canadian writers of Vietnamese descent into Category:Canadian people of Vietnamese descent) - as long as these categories exist, I see no reason not to upmerge the nominated categories into those, as well. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, there are some cases where the "writers of X descent" category was added alongside "people of X descent" rather than replacing it, making it unnecessary to add "people" back, and there are other cases where the writer is already in an appropriate subcategory — for example, Shyam Selvadurai is already in Category:Sri Lankan emigrants to Canada and Category:Canadian people of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, so readding him to Category:Canadian people of Sri Lankan descent would still be undesirable duplicate categorization. That's why I specified in my nomination statement that upmerging to "people" was conditional on the articles' other categories, rather than a blanket thing that had to automatically happen to every single article involved here. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds would it need to be? These are Canadian topics. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 November 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:Big data glossary

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a typical case of WP:Overcategorization. It adds no value to the existing categories related to Category:Big data, and is not a glossary, either. This might be more suitable for a Wikipedia Book instead, with these categories being chapters of the book.
Some of the created sub-categories "Something for big data" even have typos: Category:Storage for big date‎ and the redlink "scikits.learn" in Category:Machine learning for big data.
Some of these are pages rather than categories: Category:Visualization of big data, Category:Machine learning for big data, Category:NLP for big data, Category:Processing for big data.
-- Chire (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For info, scikits.learn was created by Caoanexo (talk · contribs) and speedily deleted. I have recreated the page as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 30 October 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:Czech people of Slovak-Jewish 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
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:News stories in Riverside County, California

[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 and move articles to Category:History of Riverside County, California or Category:Riverside County, California when appropriate (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently a one-off category. If these things are history, they belong in that category, but they also include biographies of people who were in the news in Riverside County, California, at some unspecified time or another. Imagine 2000 other county categories with every person or event that was "newsy" in the county. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_25&oldid=1079915095"