Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 15

January 15

Category:Organisations using QRpedia

• Propose deleting Category:Organisations using QRpedia - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: In Wikipedia categorization we normally try to keep encyclopedic content (i.e. articles) separate from Wikipedia administration (e.g. talk pages). This category is parented by a content category, but the pages in it are mostly talk pages (including one in Wikipedia talk namespace and its own Category talk page). I.e. it's rather a muddle. Articles such as Vršovice Savings Bank Building don't belong in a QRpedia category. DexDor ^(talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination to delete withdrawn following repurposing of category (see below). I would prefer the category to be renamed, but that's probably best done by a separate discussion. DexDor ^(talk) 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the category added by Template:WikiProject QRpedia. I just went ahead and switched its parent from Category:Wikipedia to Category:WikiProject QRpedia. Participants at that WikiProject can do with it what they will, but I agree it seems odd to have it in a content category. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - per Rhododendrites and because this category is need in the management of QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• If it's intended to be a Wikipedia administration category then it should have a name that makes that clear (Category:WikiProject QRpedia articles?), it should be tagged as a {{Wikipedia category}} and it should be purged of articles (e.g. Occupy movement). DexDor ^(talk) 23:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep But Rename/Reparent/Purge Per DexDor's comment above. Two editors think it has value with Talk Pages for the template so it should surely be kept but DexDor's nomination is understandable based on how confusing this is t**oday. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I removed all articles from the category. WikiProject QRpedia folks should probably determine whether they want this to function like a typical wikiproject template vs. designating organizational use (because the latter doesn't make sense on, say, category talk pages and wikipedia namespace talk pages). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: Did you at the same time add it, or the template, to their talk pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: Only a couple didn't have it, but yes. Well, except for the category page I removed it from. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Rhododendrites: Cool, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Regional writers

• Propose renaming Category:Regional writers to ???
• Propose renaming Category:Historians by geographic focus to ???
• Propose renaming Category:Scholars by region of area studies to ???

Nominator's rationale: It would probably be useful to bring the names of these categories into line with each other, e.g. "by geographic focus", "by region of area studies", "by region of study" or "by region studied". Note that "writers" potentially includes fiction writers, but I believe the first nominated category and all its sub-cats currently include only non-fiction writers. – Fayenatic London 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Rename to same format as parent Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area. By the way I think the third category is a bit different than the first and second, it's not so much by region but rather by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Regional writers to Category:Writers by geographical subject area

Category:Historians by geographic focus to Category:Historians by geographical subject area

Category:Scholars by region of area studies to Category:Scholars by ethnic subject area

• Rename the first two as Marcocapelle suggests. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Marcocapelle: @Johnbod: The scholars category contains some subcats which are definitely regional topics rather than ethic. Also, Area studies is the parent. Perhaps split it to two categories, by geographical subject area and ethnic subject area? – Fayenatic London 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the above changed to keep the scholars as they are. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Splitting would be better I guess. Geography and ethnicity are clearly separate topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates‎

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) sst✈ 14:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates to Category:Scottish advocates

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:NONDEF. Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining, in many articles it's not even mentioned at all. However, advocate is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. That would enable us to abolish the unhelpful category Category:Members of professional organizationsRathfelder (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This captures what is really defining, and it's not the organizational membership here. Note that I reparented the only other member of Category:Members of professional organizations. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 17 January 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:People from Millville, Massachusetts

• Propose merging Category:People from Millville, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Podgorica

• Propose merging Category:20th century in Podgorica to Category:20th century in Montenegro and Category:History of Podgorica
• Propose merging Category:21st century in Podgorica to Category:21st century in Montenegro and Category:History of Podgorica
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Podgorica

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, for currently a total of 3 articles it does not make sense to create a tree for this city. Just a single history category should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and remind the nominator of the part of WP:SMALLCAT that reads "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Please see Category:20th century by city and Category:21st century by city which contains most capital cities and other large cities. I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest to that nominator that he starts to notify category creators that he is nominating categories for deletion. Considering the tool Wikipedia:Twinkle makes it possible to tag a category for deletion, list on the CFD page and nominate the category creator with a single click, I can only consider that not nominating the creator is a deliberate decision by the nominator. Also considering how many CFD nominations made by this particular nominator, I consider this an extremely bad lack of etiquette and urge the nominator to either start using twinkle immediately or to manually nominate category creators. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The question then becomes if every city should have its own by-century tree, no matter how large or small the city / the category is. I can't quite imagine that this should be the case. (Btw I don't know Wikipedia:Twinkle, I'll have a look, thanks for the tip.) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of professional 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.

The result of the discussion was: procedural close. The nominator renominated this category here using the correct procedure we described below. I have copied the two votes below to that discussion. Note this is a non-admin close and I have participated in that subsequent nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Superfluous category. WP:NONDEFINING Much better to put the category together with the organisation of which the people are members.Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – the rationale is confused. There are no individual articles at the top level so 'defining' is irrelevant. The subcats (and many more subcats could be added) can also be parented by 'the organisation of which the people are members' so that objection is specious. Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates are clearly also 'members of a professional organisation' so what is the problem? Finally, the category is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 16:33, 16 January 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:Organisations based in the United Kingdom by membership

A meaningless category. WP:NONDEFINING Almost all organisations have membership. The organisations or categories put here were indistinguishable from the others.Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. What about charities, companies, government bodies etc.? They are all organisations without membership. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – the nominator has (a) not understood these categories and (b) emptied them out of process. If you don't understand something, leave it alone. If this category had not been emptied it would be easier to explain why some organisations can be classified as 'by membership' and others cannot. (I am not necessarily supporting this scheme. I have opposed various such schemes at cfd, eg 'by parameter', 'by paradigm', 'Works by work'. However if an editor wishes to dismantle a scheme it must be via cfd. In contrast an editor who wishes to create a category scheme can go ahead unhindered, but such asymmetries are part of life.) Oculi (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comment – the category is not tagged for cfd, and neither are the others recently brought to cfd by the same nominator. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I left a note on the nominator's talk page explaining the tagging process. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Someone has now deleted this category as empty (which it isn't). Could an admin undelete it? Oculi (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I didn't actually create this one, but I've created many like it. Organizations have a number of different attributes -- their purpose or audience, their membership, their nation of origin, their legal structure. Membership is important: Is an organization's membership all other organizations? Is it only elected officials? Men or women? Athletes or scientists? It's a core defining characteristic. You might find a better way to name the category ("by type of membership" instead of "by membership") but it's to help organize the organizations' categories. --Lquilter (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Renaming may be a good idea, but then I'd prefer Category:Membership-based organisations in the United Kingdom. The disadvantage of "by" is that it suggests each child category to contain a different kind of membership, which is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh. That's not how I read "by", but if that's how other people read it, okay. I would worry that "membership-based organisations" suggests that there are some organisations that are not membership-based. And to me, "organizations ... by membership" sounds like "by" is an organizing principle here in Wikipedia. But it's interesting to see how people think about it. --Lquilter (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of non-membership based organizations, that's what I started my oppose with, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Already Speedy Deleted @Larryv:. I think this category was emptied prior to discussion and then you deleted it as empty. Can you recreate it until this discussion closes? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was empty and tagged for speedy deletion instead of CfD. I've restored it; sorry for the trouble. larryv (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • All companies and most charities have members. The fact that government bodies and the like don't have members seems a pretty insignificant characteristic. How does this category help anyone looking for a particular kind of organisation?Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Companies usually have employees instead of members. Charities usually have sponsors instead of members. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Burial sites of the Maytag family

• Propose Deleting Category:Burial sites of the Maytag family

Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, and WP:NONDEFINING.

"Newton, Iowa" is the only article in this category and it makes no references of any Maytag family members being buried there. Given the importance of the Maytag Appliance founders to the area, it's certainly likely some are buried there but that's not defining for a city article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Notified Westfield2015 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Iowa. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete – a bizarre category. Oculi (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. No need to consider whether it's defining, since there's no on-wiki evidence that it will grow beyond one member. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- Where members of this family are buried is utterly undefining. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)