Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 16: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 41: Line 41:
*'''Rename''' I don't see any issues with tracking parameters themselves. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 07:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' I don't see any issues with tracking parameters themselves. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 07:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Pppery, Levivich, et al. If there is a genuine need to track the different parameters (about which I'm sceptical) and doing so requires a category (the linked discussions seems to indicate it might not be) then a new category can easily be created when consensus for having one emerges. Until that point, the existence of this category encourages an appearance of bad faith towards the community's view as expressed in the RFC. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Pppery, Levivich, et al. If there is a genuine need to track the different parameters (about which I'm sceptical) and doing so requires a category (the linked discussions seems to indicate it might not be) then a new category can easily be created when consensus for having one emerges. Until that point, the existence of this category encourages an appearance of bad faith towards the community's view as expressed in the RFC. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Is this a suggestion that an RfC will be needed in order to create a category? A software writer may have legitimate technical reasons to create/delete categories as needed and as a way to gauge end-user usage. I am not fond of categories that produce visible errors, but I have no problem with tracking categories especially since there are very few diagnostics/survey tools available to those who produce the software that this CfD nomination nitpicks. [[Special:Contributions/65.204.10.232|65.204.10.232]] ([[User talk:65.204.10.232|talk]]) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


==== Category:Theistic finitism ====
==== Category:Theistic finitism ====

Revision as of 13:15, 17 April 2021

< April 15 April 17 >

April 16

Category:Ancient Egyptian concepts

Nominator's rationale: delete, most articles are about ancient Egyptian deities (for which we already have a category tree) and otherwise the category is a hodgepodge of unrelated articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter

Nominator's rationale: The RfC this was based on (WP:VPPR#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention has been closed again, and there are no "discouraged parameters" in CS1, and no maintenance is needed on them. Code that populates this should be reversed, and the category then deleted. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention, Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on hyphenated citation template parameters closed – how to proceed?. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. The RFC has decided that this is a non-issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as rename or keep. A nomination at this point in time clearly shows the nominator's determination to not collaborate with the editors and developers who actually take care of citation templates and who spend a great deal of their precious time to maintain and further improve them. I consider the nominator's exhibited behaviour as very far outside of any proper social communication and collaboration standards among well-meaning people. It is rude and disruptive.
The template developers regularly deal with refinements of the citation category system and can cope with technically no longer used maintenance and error categories themselves without requiring the overhead of CfDs for this. It is wasting resources and wearing out those who actually contribute to our citation system - risking that our citation templates will become less maintained and the development of new advanced features delayed or abandoned.
The proper place to discuss CS1/CS2 citation template related issues is Help talk:Citation Style 1, where we are already discussing what to best do with this category since yesterday ([1]). The nominator is well aware of this but chosed not to voice his opinion there. Instead, he deliberately chosed to undermine the process by starting this parallel discussion and to neither make the participants of the discussion there aware of his nomination here nor to point the readers of this CfD to the already ongoing discussion. This could be a simple oversight by a new and unexperienced editor, but the nominator is not by any means, therefore it is impossible to assume good faith in such a behaviour; there are very clearly tactics at work, not the wish to collaborate and to seek the best possible solution.
For those interested in the background, the original closure of the RfC can be found here ([2]) and the category in question was created following this discussion ([3]) as a result of the RfC's closure. The nominator did not agree with the outcome and started an AN thread to overthrow the closure ([4]) - also without mentioning this in the relevant forum where we were busy to address the requirements imposed by the original closure. It is obvious why he chosed not to inform the participants of this forum - if he had, he would have faced significant opposition which could have lead to a different result.
The category should not be deleted but renamed (or simply kept) because it is useful to give insight into the usage of non-hyphenated parameters. This continues to be interesting information for those who care about the further development of the citation templates.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Rename (or whatever the appropriate term of art is) to Category:CS1 properties: unhyphenated multiword parameter or similar, as is currently being discussed at Help Talk:CS1. This discussion is moot; there is no disagreement at HT:CS1 that the current tracking category name needs to change. Tracking categories are used all the time to measure and track the use of parameters in templates (e.g. Category:Album chart usages for BillboardComedy, or Category:Infobox road instances in Egypt). This category is no different, except that it was forced to have its current suboptimal name by the wording of the initial RFC closure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad Faith Nom. Whatever you think of the close itself, discussion is and has been proceeding on the relevant talk page as to how the module system should deal with the second close. Hidden categories need not go anywhere Today much less Tomorrow, so the "fix it now, fix it now" attitude is entirely uncalled for, even if there were consensus on the subject.

    Moving on from the meta matters, I do not see that the second close of the RFC demonstrates that this category cannot continue to exist. Were we to remove the relevant parameters from the documentation and continue to put little green messages that these are discouraged and a category to go with the latter, that in no way would actually be contrary to the close from the RFC (which I'm |this close| to challenging itself given that the headcount at AN was almost all "I'm a C person and I don't like the close"). But even if you can argue that there shouldn't be little green messages and a category that says "discouraged", you still haven't demonstrated that these can't be tracked in some way. Whether for maintenance or otherwise. We have multiple such categories already in the CS1/2 system, so you can't even approach it from a "this would be inconsistent" (or you could nominate the rest I guess, but good luck with that consensus). So, straight Keep, second option rename/move. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per the close of the RFC, these parameters are not discouraged, so this category is misleading and threatens to undermine to consensus of the RFC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery et al. No need for this category. No need to track hyphenated and unhyphenated parameters (and there are other ways of doing so, mentioned at CS1 talk page). Levivich harass/hound 22:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't see any issues with tracking parameters themselves. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery, Levivich, et al. If there is a genuine need to track the different parameters (about which I'm sceptical) and doing so requires a category (the linked discussions seems to indicate it might not be) then a new category can easily be created when consensus for having one emerges. Until that point, the existence of this category encourages an appearance of bad faith towards the community's view as expressed in the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a suggestion that an RfC will be needed in order to create a category? A software writer may have legitimate technical reasons to create/delete categories as needed and as a way to gauge end-user usage. I am not fond of categories that produce visible errors, but I have no problem with tracking categories especially since there are very few diagnostics/survey tools available to those who produce the software that this CfD nomination nitpicks. 65.204.10.232 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theistic finitism

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, contains the main article and an article about a book. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Czech Republic

Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Czech Republic, Category:21st-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Czech Republic. BenKuykendall (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moths by non-island country

Please delete:

Since moths don't know anything about the borders of these countries, many of them will have ranges which cross national borders to the point of making these category divisions meaningless. Animal lover 666 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with synesthesia

Nominator's rationale: delete, non-defining characteristic and it is a previously deleted category, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only a few exceptions, having synesthesia is mentioned as a brief note in the "Personal life" section of the articles. If musicians with synesthesia is a notable topic in its own right, by all means write an article about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be some sort of attempt at something akin to the WikiProject assessment categories, but much cruder. It doesn't have the by-quality or by-importance ratings.
The India-related category dates from 2008, and the West Bengal cat is from 2016, but between them they contain only 14 pages. Whatever the idea was when they were created, they serve no useful purpose now that the articles are all categorised properly in other ways, so there is no need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 Vice presidential election

Nominator's rationale: This topic may be too small for a category —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football and apartheid

Nominator's rationale: We use "soccer" when referring to this sport in South Africa: Soccer in South Africa, Category:Soccer in South Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rashtra

Nominator's rationale: Does not make sense. No real connection between Maharashtra and Malla (Ancient India). —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-alumni attendees of Dartmouth College

Nominator's rationale: I think what is being indicated here is that the persons in the category attended Dartmouth College but were not awarded a degree from it. The definition of "alumnus" is usually "a former pupil or student", i.e., broad enough to include non-graduates, though an alternate definition can be "a graduate". Alumnus says, "An alumnus ... of a college, university, or other school is a former student who has either attended or graduated in some fashion from the institution". As far as I know, the many, many alumni categories WP has are not applied in a way that restricts them to those who were awarded a degree. (Another point of view, which would suggest deletion, is that if they weren't awarded a degree, perhaps this feature of their life is not even worth categorizing by.) I'm pretty sure this general issue has been discussed before, but I can't find it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger ao that this school is consistent with others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Business School alumni

Nominator's rationale: Is there any reason that these articles should not just be merged to the appropriate alumni category? We don't generally categorize alumni by specific programs within a school. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bandung Conference attendees

Nominator's rationale: Having attended the Bandung Conference is not defining for these politicians. Politicians attend many conferences during their tenures, and we generally do not categorize politicians by this feature of their positions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Federal and provincial leaders of the Opposition (Canada)

Nominator's rationale: Completely overlapping scopes. The target category is more inclusive as there are also territorial opposition leaders in Canada, and we have an article for one that is included in the "federal and provincial" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Cleanup Taskforce

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive categories

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive is marked as {{historical}} * Pppery * it has begun... 02:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:XBIZ Awards

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C2F, a category with one eponymous article
The XBIZ Awards honor people in the American pornograhic film industry. In a prior CFD nomination, we deleted the Category:XBIZ Award winners subcategory and this a follow up nom. All that was left behind in this category was the main article and Category:XBIZ Awards templates, which is already well categorized. I don't seem much growth potential here but, if I'm wrong and there are ever 5+ direct articles, no objection to recreating later. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wason Medalists

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
We don't have a main article on the Wason Medal but it's an engineering research award from the American Concrete Institute (ACI). The articles for recipients don't treat it as defining and generally mention the award in passing like with W. Gene Corley, Fazlur Rahman Khan, and Nathan M. Newmark. (The only 1 of the 7 articles to mention it in the lede is Abraham Burton Cohen.) All the category contents are now listified right here in the ACI article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Bradley Cooper

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry which is a redirect. No navigational help. Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_16&oldid=1018325638"