Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 23

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbachmann (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 24 January 2023 (→‎Category:Bronze Age literature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 22 January 24 >

January 23

Category:Wikipedians with ADHD

Nominator's rationale: This was recreated following a DRV overturning a prior deletion from 2007 for mainly procedural reasons. No convincing evidence has been presented that it "has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia", so it should be re-deleted. @Extraordinary Writ, VegaDark, Frank Anchor, Goldsztajn, Jclemens, Liz, Hobit, Alalch E., Sandstein, and Thryduulf: * Pppery * it has begun... 23:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public officials from Allentown, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: There is no clear definition of what constitutes a public official and no other similar categories to my knowledge. As such, this is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. User:Namiba 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these people have very different occupations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Egyptian texts

Nominator's rationale: No meaningful distinction between "texts" and "literature" - literature is the term commonly used for texts - car chasm (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • leave unmerged as I understand it, most ancient texts are things like inventory and bookkeeping--not things that could be called "literature" but are still "texts". Hobit (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not in anyway clear to me, people refer to works of literature as "texts" all the time, and certainly many things called "literature" are listed under texts so it seems like others may have the same confusion. Perhaps they should be swapped with "texts" as the parent and "literature" as the subcat? - car chasm (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it may be useful to distinguish a topic category (literature) and a set category (texts) though I am not sure if a topic category can be properly populated in the case of ancient Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Age literature

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DEFINING, WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, WP:SMALLCAT - all of the entries here already belong in Category:Ancient Near East literature and all but two of them (Ugaritic, Hittite) continued into the Iron age. Category:Ancient Near East literature can be categorized under Category:Iron Age and Category:Bronze Age to fix the category tree. - car chasm (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Middle Eastern wisdom literature

Nominator's rationale: Standard naming convention is "Ancient Near East" - car chasm (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran

Nominator's rationale: C2D per People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Charles Essie (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British colonels

Nominator's rationale: This is the only category like this in Category:British military officers. Everybody else is categorised by their service, not their rank. This one lumps together anyone who held a specific rank no matter which service they belonged to (including the British Indian Army, which was not even part of the British Armed Forces despite the blurb). What is its point? Pure unnecessary overcategorisation which is of no use whatsoever to a reader. Who cares which officers reached the rank of colonel and no higher? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presocratic philosophical literature

Nominator's rationale:

Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground

Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.
Delete where already categorized by line. Upmerge where the stations are not already in another subcategory.
See recent:
  1. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground
  2. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
  3. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican female child singers

Nominator's rationale: There is only one "female child singers" category for any country, and its one member is in all relevant parent categories (21st-century Mexican women singers, Mexican child singers). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kosovan ski jumping biography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, editors are not free to create stub categories willy-nilly for just one article -- there have to be 60 or more articles to be filed in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they can be created, but this features just one article and has no evidence of project approval. I'm agnostic about whether the stub template is needed or not; it would be harmless if it was sorting the article into other more general stub categories that already exist, but it's not clearly needed for just one article either. So I leave the template for consensus to decide on, but a dedicated category cannot be kept for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60 is not at all a feasible bar for primary content categories; there are a lot of circumstances where a category much smaller than that is entirely appropriate and necessary, and we also have to balance the issue of small categories against parent categories that might become too large to be browsable without diffusion into subcategories. Stub categories, however, are different — they're meant for internal project maintenance, not end-user browsing, so the bar can be very different for them than it is for end-user content categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_23&oldid=1135378440"