Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4

< May 3 May 5 >

May 4

Prehistoric centuries in science

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These only contain lists of lunar and solar eclipses. The articles are not about observations, recordings or interpretations made at the time, which would be prehistoric science. Rather, they are calculations by modern science. Therefore these categories have no valid members. The earliest good category is Category:8th century BC in science which has the metalworking article Llyn Fawr Phase. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—with no objection to demerging should articles appear that appropriately belong in those centuries. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, I should have said that they currently have no valid members. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if pages arise about science/technology in those times. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lunar eclipses are events in the century and year they are calculated as occuring in, just as lunar eclipses in 2020 or the United States presidential election, 2016 are (forecast) future events in 2020 and 2016 respectively. And while a medieval lunar eclipse may have been observed and recorded by a medieval monk, the lists of medieval lunar eclipses with precise times etc depend on contemporary (20th or 21st century) calculations. Two early natural disasters are the Hekla 3 eruption in (perhaps) the 12th century BC and 4.2 kiloyear event in the 22nd century BC. And if kept I would propose renaming as below: Hugo999 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (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:Cannes Film Festival jury presidents

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've nominated this one separately, as I could see some editors feeling that a Cannes film fest presidency is a more distinguished honour than simply to be a jurist -- meriting a keep !vote. However, I still believe WP:NOTDEFINING applies for these individuals. I would have no objection if anyone wishes to merge these two CfD nominations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are a subcategory of members of the jury, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always interesting getting a personal attack in place of a valid argument at Cfd. And when did I suggest that this category was not a sub-cat of the jurist one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easy does it. Don't take irritation for a personal attack. You have attacked my hard work, so naturally there is some irritation, and I'm relaying how other people have seen my work. They see its value and appreciate it.
I never said that you suggested anything about the subcategory. I just provided that information for anyone considering a merge or deletion. It's good to know.
BTW, the valid argument is in there, if you look for it. We have categories for award winners, so why not for those who actually judge them, IOW those who sit above them? -- Brangifer (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked a sample of articles in this category and none mentioned this in the lead and several didn't mention it at all. In other words, it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these people. WP:DNWAUC applies. For info: The list is a much better presentation of this information for all the usual reasons - e.g. it can include people that we don't (yet) have articles for (which is itself an indication that this "award" isn't of such importance that it is an exception to WP:OC#AWARD). DexDor (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are somehow extrapolating from why someone has been chosen to sit on a jury as being equal to receiving a formal award? Isn't that a bit of a stretch not covered by WP:OC#AWARD? It seems like OR to me, IOW a misapplication of a guideline. The wording would need to be changed to justify such usage, and that hasn't been done. I suspect we could delete a huge number of helpful and well-accepted categories based on such thinking, but maybe they should be deleted anyway, since helpfulness no longer seems to be a reason for creating categories, at least according to what's happening here. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this manner of interpreting the use of categories. It's certainly different from what it used to be. Deletionism seems to be rampant, as if we were a paper encyclopedia lacking space. I've been here so long, and during that time some things change without one knowing it's happened, so much so that Wikipedia is becoming unrecognizable in some respects from when I started here in about 2003/2004. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - An individual is chosen to be the President of the Jury at Cannes usually because they have a very distinguished film career, spanning many decades. It's therefore an honour to be the jury for that given festival. You could (and I certainly would) argue that Cannes is the most important festival in the calendar, and therefore the host is a defining asspect. However, compare this with people who've hosted the Academy Awards, and you'll find no such category for them. It would also begin a slippery slope of adding categories to everyone who's hosted a film festival, creating clutter. On a side note, I think this article and this article can be merged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a cl;assic performacne by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (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:Cannes Film Festival jury members

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not believe that simply being on a film jury is WP:DEFINING for these individuals, even if it is Cannes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are members of this category, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (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:Films set in prison

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: Withdrawn by nominator (NAC). – DexDor (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A previous CfM was non-admin closed as "no rationale given," even though I think the nominator gave a perfectly clear, if brief, rationale. So let me restate this rationale at greater length: having read the detailed description on the nominated category, I still do not see a meaningful distinction from the target category. However, I would be equally open to a reverse merge, if others prefer to retain the "films set in X" structure. I just don't think we should have two categories that are indeed redundant, as User:Liz pointed out in her 2012 CfM, which in my opinion was closed prematurely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my CfM for these two categories was in August 2013 (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 4#Category:Films set in prison). Liz Read! Talk! 12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I didn't see that one. In that case, I'm not interested in revisiting so soon, even though I still think you were quite right in wishing to merge. Withdrawn by nominator. 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: Withdrawal by nom was this[1] edit. DexDor (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (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:Rebbetzins of Lubavitch

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: no consensus. A category with only one member is not particularly useful for navigation, so it looks to me as if merger to all parents, or widening the scope, would be desirable. Therefore, this closure is no bar to making a further proposal shortly. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most do not have an article, and the group can never be larger than 7 anyways. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2014 (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:Rivers on Vancouver Island

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange name. Propose renaming Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island to Category:Rivers of Vancouver Island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it for renaming above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Above" meaning May 5. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 6 May 2014 (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:Taxa with documented soft tissue fossils

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Species should be categorized by the characteristics of the species (e.g. whether the species is extinct or not), rather than by characteristics of the evidence for that species (e.g. we don't put the Thylacine article in a category for extinct animals that were photographed). See related CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_11#Category:Taxa_with_documented_paleopathologies. Note: the use of the word "documented" in a category name is very unusual in enwiki.
Listification or a rename (e.g. to "Prehistoric taxa with soft tissue") could be considered. DexDor (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2014 (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:Association football captains

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following this decision from April 23, only a subcat of lists is left, and this should be moved up to one parent (it is already within a sub-cat of the other). – Fayenatic London 13:22, 4 May 2014 (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.

Sports history

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 all, using "sport" in non-US categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:History of sports and sibling Category:History of sports by sport. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "History of sports by sport" is a bit of a mouthful, but I suppose it does what it says. The alternative would be "sports history by sport".-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be "sports' history", would it not? Category:History of individual sports, would be better than sports by sport. However, I do not feel very strongly on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2014 (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 comics characters

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: keep. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears this was missed out from a large nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Fictional_characters_by_origin Tim! (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2014 (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.