Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 172: Line 172:
::::: Stefanomione isn't blocked. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
::::: Stefanomione isn't blocked. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Indeed. Rather, he is under a [[WP:TOPICBAN]] from working on categories. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Indeed. Rather, he is under a [[WP:TOPICBAN]] from working on categories. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
:*It seems to me that these kinds of categories are considered not useful in general. I disagree with that because what they are doing is providing an overview on the differnet ways of '''categorizations''' itself: categorization by (1) topic, (2) time or (3) space / location. Naturally, the by far largest portion will be about categorizations by topic and here we need to make sure to have at least 2 categories: One that lists all the numerous '''topics''' (politics, history, ..) that are getting categorized in various ways and another category which lists several '''parameters''' [X] by which categories are '''getting''' categorized (''' category by X'''). One possible way to achieve that is written by me below. [[User:CreativeName1|CN1]] ([[User talk:CreativeName1|talk]]) 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
:*It seems to me that these kinds of categories are considered not useful in general. I disagree with that because what they are doing is providing an overview on the differnet ways of '''categorizations''' itself: categorization by (1) topic, (2) time or (3) space / location. Naturally, the by far largest portion will be about categorizations by topic and here we need to make sure to have at least 2 categories: One that lists all the numerous '''topics''' (politics, history, ..) that are getting categorized and another category which lists several parameters [X] by which categories ('''topic not specified, hence »categories«''') are getting categorized: subcategories names have form (category by X). [[User:CreativeName1|CN1]] ([[User talk:CreativeName1|talk]]) 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
:* Categorically rejecting a naming syntax or type of categorization solely based on ... whatever reason you personally might have with it, is no good practise. I ask in which way letting the categories well alone and let people naturally further develop them to their liking would be disruptive to the rest of Wikipedia. Let it sit. Give it time. See for example [[:Category:Categories by geographical categorization]] it's 5 years old and is doing rather well. [[User:CreativeName1|CN1]] ([[User talk:CreativeName1|talk]]) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
:* Categorically rejecting a naming syntax or type of categorization solely based on ... whatever reason you personally might have with it, is no good practise. I ask in which way letting the categories well alone and let people naturally further develop them to their liking would be disruptive to the rest of Wikipedia. Let it sit. Give it time. See for example [[:Category:Categories by geographical categorization]], it's 5 years old and is doing rather well. [[User:CreativeName1|CN1]] ([[User talk:CreativeName1|talk]]) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


==== Category:Lists of artists by biographer ====
==== Category:Lists of artists by biographer ====

Revision as of 13:14, 15 November 2019

< November 5 November 7 >

November 6

Category:Impunity

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. For the record, the other two members were American cover-up of Japanese war crimes and 2005 CIA interrogation videotapes destruction. MER-C 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, POV Lmatt (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2019 (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.

9th/10th century book decades

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. MER-C 18:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Between them, these four categories contain only one article, and four redirects. Each of the categories is categorised inside itself, which is very bad practice. Two of the categories (Category:930s books and Category:950s books) have previously been deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Early medieval works and books, and an attempt (see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75#Clarification: scope of G4) to see if (i) two of these were eligible for WP:CSD#G4 and (ii) whether the other two were also eligible for G4, despite not having featured in the earlier CFD, was inconclusive. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (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:Scottish-language surnames

Nominator's rationale: "Scottish" is not a language. "Scottish Gaelic" is a real language spoken by a few Scots but Scots is an English language. Euanjohnb (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winston-Salem City Council members

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable political position. Winston-Salem is not a city where the city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability, so there's little to no prospect of expansion -- and as it stands, there's just one person actually filed here at all, and even his article is up for deletion as it doesn't properly demonstrate that he's actually notable in the first place. But even in the unlikely event that somebody can salvage it enough to make it keepable, this category still wouldn't be needed for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two more. I started the category but I must admit that I am not sure why. It's a medium-sized city (about 250,000 residents) so there is a decent chance that more City Council members are notable but we can recreate it if and when that is found to be the case.--TM 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Konkani-language poets

Nominator's rationale: "Konkani poets" refers to the same i.e. "Konkani-language poets"; poets from the region are already classified under Category:Poets from Goa. (See Category:Marathi poets) SerTanmay (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greensboro City Council members

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable position. City councillors are not routinely accepted as "inherently" notable, so this isn't readily expandable -- both of the two people here are notable for other reasons (one went on to become mayor and the other served in the state legislature) rather than because they were city councillors per se. So there would need to be a lot more than just two notable former city councillors to justify a dedicated category for them. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SMALLCAT does not even really apply in this situation. Greensboro is a city of almost 300,000 residents. Other comparably-sized cities all have more than a sufficient number of articles on City Council members. For example, Lowell, Massachusetts (population 111,000) has 20.--TM 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country subdivisions by administrative level

Nominator's rationale: Contents were recently moved out-of-process. The original name was clearer, and better grammar. – Fayenatic London 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male Rappers

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. MER-C 18:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a redirected category with alternative capitalization, and should be deleted per Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept#Alternative treatments of category redirects. Senator2029 “Talk” 17:46, 6 November 2019 (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:Free encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Free online encyclopedias Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated Category:Free encyclopedias, which is in both Category:Encyclopedias and Category:Free content, to be merged to only one of those parents. As you first stated, the only current content of the nominated category Category:Free encyclopedias is the sub-cat Category:Free online encyclopedias. Your proposal, if implemented simply by listing for a bot to process it in the normal way, would result in a bot editing the member page Category:Free online encyclopedias, removing it from Category:Free encyclopedias and adding it directly into Category:Encyclopedias. If this happened, the sub-cat Category:Free online encyclopedias would no longer be part of the hierarchy Category:Free content.
When you nominate a category, you need to consider what are the parents of that category, and whether its contents (either sub-cats or direct member articles) belong in more than one of those parent categories.
The CFM template may not help you make a nomination for merger to two or more parents, but you can edit the nomination after creating it, or just enter "ALL PARENTS" as the target in the first place.
I hope this is helpful. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by parameter

Nominator's rationale: The split between "noun" and "adjective" is arbitrary; some adjectivally-named categories have sub-cats "by nouns", e.g. Category:Categories by geographical categorization (adj) contains "by region" (noun). – Fayenatic London 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Sub-Colloquy on various merge proposals)
Part of the trouble with your approach is that by emptying categories and creating new ones, instead of renaming via the CFD process, you are leaving behind the page history of the category (which matters for GFDL), as well as the talk page and the interwiki links. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • CN1 approach
I propose seeing this branch of the category system in the following manner:
I propose renaming Category:Categories by category to Category:Categories by categorization and making it the parent category of „…by categorization“ named categories.
its subcategories are, for now, the following three:
Category:Categories by geographical categorization (weak sideline suggestion to maybe consider: „categories by spatial categorization“)
Category:Categories by periodical categorization (weak sideline suggestion to maybe consider: rename it to „categories by temporal catgorization«)
Category:Categories by topical categorization
As I see it, this category for now has four subcategories only, because sport, religion, etc are topics, they are no topical categorizations. field and issue are topical categorizations.
Category:Categories by field
Category:Categories by issue
Category:Categories by enzyclopedic categorization
Examples
Category:Categories by time
Category:Categories by sport
Category:Categories by religion
Category:Categories by topic
Regarding potential confusion between »categories by enzyclopdic topic« and »categories by topic«
»categories by enzyclopdic topic« is a category that lists [classical enzyclopedic] topics by with [all kind of] topics are sorted). In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Ys.
»categories by topic« is a category that lists categories, which are sorted by topic. In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Xs. It would really help to rename it to »topics by topic«.
CN1 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither an idea who Stefanomiones is nor willingness to research him. If you have something substantial to address my post with, that would be helpful. CN1 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CN1: see my message addressed to Lmatt.[1] I'm afraid that like those two editors, your suggestions so far on these meta-categories are not gaining support, because they are likewise not intuitively clear. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi Okay, okay, but what is it specifically, that is not clear in these categories that the proposal mentiones or in my proposed approach? People so far did nothing but comparing me to a user who, as far as I understand, might have done some confusing categories, but as I see also did created extremely many useful categories. Just saying the categories are bad and confusing is not enough, WHAT is it about them that confuses you? CN1 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying? CN1 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Stefanomione is a blocked user who created many weird categories similar to the ones we are discussing now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stefanomione isn't blocked. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Rather, he is under a WP:TOPICBAN from working on categories. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that these kinds of categories are considered not useful in general. I disagree with that because what they are doing is providing an overview on the differnet ways of categorizations itself: categorization by (1) topic, (2) time or (3) space / location. Naturally, the by far largest portion will be about categorizations by topic and here we need to make sure to have at least 2 categories: One that lists all the numerous topics (politics, history, ..) that are getting categorized and another category which lists several parameters [X] by which categories (topic not specified, hence »categories«) are getting categorized: subcategories names have form (category by X). CN1 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorically rejecting a naming syntax or type of categorization solely based on ... whatever reason you personally might have with it, is no good practise. I ask in which way letting the categories well alone and let people naturally further develop them to their liking would be disruptive to the rest of Wikipedia. Let it sit. Give it time. See for example Category:Categories by geographical categorization, it's 5 years old and is doing rather well. CN1 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of artists by biographer

Nominator's rationale: Current name "by biographer" does not appear to fit all the members, since only some of the contents have the biographer's name in the article name. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All except one of these are indeed "older works", I think 250+ years. Few if any could be called "biographical dictionaries" as they have a relatively small group of biographies, say 50-200. Category:Biographical compilations on artists surely isn't grammatical, and one of the points of the category is that it contains article that list the subjects covered, with the exception of Benezit Dictionary of Artists, which doesn't list the 170,000 biographical entries the book contains, and should not be in the category. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZEE5 original films

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate Category Category:Zee5 original films already exists. Sid95Q (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6&oldid=926301636"