Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 27: Line 27:
** Please also change your non-compliant signature, to include a link to your user page as required by [[WP:SIGLINK]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 07:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
** Please also change your non-compliant signature, to include a link to your user page as required by [[WP:SIGLINK]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 07:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


*** {{ping|Fayenatic london}} Please do not link me with random people without any proof (let alone fraudsters). I genuinely don't see any use for an article with just 6 names. About the conflict of interest, it has been a misunderstanding between one of the editors and i which has been cleared and i have already declared my COI with an article that i have been asked to create. Immu 01 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
*** {{ping|Fayenatic london}} Please do not link me with random people without any proof (let alone fraudsters). I genuinely don't see any use for an article with just 6 names. About the conflict of interest, it has been a misunderstanding between one of the editors and i which has been cleared and i have already declared my COI with an article that i have been asked to create. Also, i was unaware that minimum limit for pages is 5 but i do now. Immu 01 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


==== Category:Unicode replacement characters ====
==== Category:Unicode replacement characters ====

Revision as of 08:29, 10 April 2019

< April 6 April 8 >

April 7

Category:Pakistani fraudsters

Nominator's rationale: a page with only 6 names isn't worthy enough to stay up. Immu 01 20:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. 5 pages usually taken as an acceptable minimum size for a category
  2. this is part of an established series under Category:Fraudsters by nationality.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: Please do not link me with random people without any proof (let alone fraudsters). I genuinely don't see any use for an article with just 6 names. About the conflict of interest, it has been a misunderstanding between one of the editors and i which has been cleared and i have already declared my COI with an article that i have been asked to create. Also, i was unaware that minimum limit for pages is 5 but i do now. Immu 01 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unicode replacement characters

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreferenced album articles

Nominator's rationale: Does not seem to be used as it is empty and has no foreseeable use, I have previously discussed the matter here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries in Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries if they did not exist yet. Afghanistan emerged as a country in the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries in Albania

Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries if they did not exist yet. Albania was a kingdom under the Anjou dynasty from 1272 to 1368. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame

Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:OCAWARD or WP:SMALLCAT
It's not clear if this category intends to be an organization/museum category an awards category. The Texas Sports Hall of Fame in Waco is certainly bigger than my local Delaware equivalent, but so are the 352 athletes] they've inducted. The articles for Shaquille O'Neal, Roger Clemens and Mike Modano all mention other Halls of Fame they were inducted into but make no mention of this one so it doesn't seem defining. If this is a category about the organization, the main article is the only one that belongs in it with limited growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just don't see a good rationale for any state-level sports halls of fame categories. National halls of fame categories might make sense in certain cases, but not state-level. Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and possibly WP:NARROWCAT
We don't have a main article for the United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame to establish notability but, according to their web site, it was established in 2011 although the vast majority of inductees were active decades earlier. The main problem is that this is an award primarilly for U.S. Marines who were also prominent athletes outside the Marines. For instance, Jack Lummus was a major football player and Greg Burgess was an Olympic swimmer and then enlisted while Elroy Hirsch and Tom Seaver served and then played played professional football and baseball, respectively. The Olypic shooter athletes in this category (Ken Norton & William McMillan (sport shooter)) have meaningful interaction between their sporting and military careers but they are outliers. All of them are already categorized in both Category:United States Marines and their respective sports categories and this intersection award isn't defining. I copied the curent contents of the category here and here so no work is lost of anyone wants to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a special recognition given by the Marine Corps. The rationale given by the nominator does not account for the fact that these athletes achieved these accomplished despite also serving in the military, with their athletic training often interrupted by military activities. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The fact that honors of this sort are meaningful to the recipients and their family & friends is not doubted. Nonetheless, that does not make them a sound basis for categorization. Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO, the meaningfulness to the recipients and their families is not relevant. In my opinion, it is meaningful to the article on the person, and as a category, to researchers looking for similar items on the subject. It is no different than a category listing a school attended or an award received. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine, your username and comments give a v strong suggestion that you may not be taking an NPOV approach to the topic. Please step back from personal opinions and apply WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I have an interest in military related articles, however, my point stands. Why is a cat of a school "defining" and this recognition from a military service not? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine, that is classic WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. This discussion is about Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees, not schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment and use of WP:OTHERCATSEXIST does not address my question or my point, which I will state below. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine: Your point is that instead of engaging in assessment of the WP:DEFININGness of the nominated category, you are pointing somewhere else by questioning the definingness of a completely unrelated set of categories.
However, even if you are 100% right that those other categories are also non-defining, that is a reason to open a separate discussion to delete them ... but it is not a reason to keep this non-defining category.
In articlespace, the same basic principle has a shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That's crude, but on point: If we couldn't delete any piece of crap unless and until every other piece of crap had been deleted, then we'd never be able to tackle anything unless we tackled everything at once. And if we tackled it all at once, we would still be unable to remove any crap at all unless everyone involved agreed about the tire list of what's crap and what isn't. No clwanup system can work that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was addressing the flawed logic used below to determine if an item is defining, that an item must be in the lede of an article to be "defining" and thus also included as a cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Walk with Me 12:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The key test here is WP:DEFINING. To select a sample to test, I used a randon number generator to select for me 5 out of the 24 pages in the category. The 5 numbers (20, 9, 18, 7, 5) gave the following articles:
  1. Tom Seaver: USMCDHoF mentioned in lede of article
  2. Hayden Fry: USMCDHoF unmentioned except in category
  3. Barney Ross: USMCDHoF mentioned only in the "Honors" section at the bottom of the article
  4. Vince Dooley: USMCDHoF mentioned only in the "Awards and honors" section at the bottom of the article, as the last of 8 awards listed there
  5. Josh Culbreath: USMCDHoF mentioned in lede of article
That's only 40% thinking it is lede-worthy. Far too low to be WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the articles in this category, how many of these have the school they attended in the lede, but also have the school they attended as a cat? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine, as I noted above, that is classic WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. This discussion is about Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees, not schools.
If you want to have a discussion about categorising people by school, feel free to open an RFC or a group CFD nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The logic here is that a cat is “defining” if in the lede. IMHO, that is a faulty test, and I use schools as an example of why that test does not hold true. Many, if not most articles on people do not include the school they attended in the lede, but almost all include the school they attended as a cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)
  • These people contributed (in various proportions) to the Marines and to sports which caused two things to happen: they have articles on Wikipedia and they received this award. I see awards defining only in the rare cases where the award is actually an emphasis with a well written Wikipedia article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have voted for a Keep on this category, however I know that since I served in the Marine Corps, my vote will attract criticism. I believe that an article about the "United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame" should be written and here I am wondering why hasn't anyone taken the task of doing so. Tony the Marine (talk)
I certainly would not discount your perspective based on your service, although there is a potential WP:CANVAS issue with how you got here. We actually agree though that creating a main article would be a positive direction which is why I saved the contents of this category here and here so no work was lost. One HOF article that I like because it has a sortable list is the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame if that's helpful as a template. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony the Marine, please remember that WP:NOTAVOTE. You have cited no policy-based reason for your !vote, so the closer is obliged to discount it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will address the Wikipedia:CANVAS because that was me, and I honestly would do it again in a heartbeat because the two people I notified are my mentors. As the creator of a different "Hall of Fame" cat, I was never notified of the CfD Cat:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inductees, and thus never had the opportunity to comment. In reviewing that case with respect to this one and others in this series, it appears to me that most of these "Hall of Fame" deletions have the same relatively small group of people commenting, and IMHO, the community would benefit from more involvement and comments by others as well. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no need to make a big fuzz over nothing. Read carefully and you all will see that I did not vote for a "keep" and that I only made a "Comment". Forget about the "Category", my comment addressed the fact that there should be an article about the USMC Sports Hall of Fame, plain and simple. To the closer: Do not regard my "Comment" as a "Keep" vote, it is not so. It would have been improper of me to vote either way. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata

Nominator's rationale: Category contains many, many non-free images which may not be imported to Wikidata (P18 only allows images from Commons), but which can not be cleared from this category either. Basically, the vast majority of pages in this category don't need (are not allowed to have) the "maintenance" it is intended for. (Of course, Wikidata maintenance categories belong on Wikidata, not here, but that is a different discussion.) Fram (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 March 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: the category currently contains 56,417 pages, so I'd prefer to see some comment on it before deletion. This category is populated by two templates, so I have left notifications at Template talk:Infobox book and Template talk:Infobox person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I left a notification at Wikiproject Wikidata as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pages with images not on Wikidata for now. This is just a suggestion for the interim while something better is found. What would be ideal is for the rather crude code that creates this classification ({{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{#if:{{#property:P18}}||[[Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata]]}} were updated to check that the image isn't a non-free image as well before applying the category. We could write such code in a Lua module but it would take an expensive call as I think we would have to read the entire text on the file page and see whether it contained the text {{Non-free use rationale.
    An alternative would be for a bot to look at the intersection of Category:Pages with images not on Wikidata and the negative of the search hastemplate:Non-free use rationale for the infobox image, and create a usable maintenance category from that. It would be easier and less load, but has the disadvantage that it requires the continued existence of the current 56K member not-so-useful category. Maybe the answer would be to write a bot that looked for all three conditions and use that to generate the desired maintenance category from scratch, then there's no reason to keep this category. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles containing Sinhalese-language text

Nominator's rationale: Match the language name in the category with the Sinhala language and Sinhala script articles Danielklein (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Categories such as this are populated by use of the {{Lang|foo|text in Fooish language here}} in the articles. A CFD discusison can't change the way that {{Lang}} operates, but a modification of the appropriate template or module can select which category is used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @BrownHairedGirl! I've requested the data be changed back to its previous value on the appropriate module's talk page. Danielklein (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because category names ought to match the articles. All this should really be a purely technical matter, to be resolved by editing the override tables used by Module:Lang (which provides the machinery that populates these categories), but that module is overseen by one editor who's generally proved unwilling to concede the need for keeping this spellings in sync, so we need a discussion somewhere to gain consensus, and this place here is as good as any other. – Uanfala (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_7&oldid=891807997"