Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 10

< January 9 January 11 >

January 10

Category:ISKCON Youth Forum

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in the category, just a redirect Rathfelder (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (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:Punjabi Rajputs

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorise people by caste. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion in which the parent Category:Rajput clans was kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2018 (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:Picture books by Arthur Rackham

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Arthur Rackham isn't even mentioned in 2 of the 3 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there are a couple of books where Rackham was the illustrator (and which gain some of their notability because of that), but going through the list in his bio, in general he provided plates for some particular edition of an established work, so WP:NONDEF would in general apply. Also, it's not clear that any of these are "picture books" in he modern sense, and as far as I can tell he didn't write any of them; he provided illustrations for the stories of others. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant in purpose to Category:Books illustrated by Arthur Rackham, and two of the three entries are mis-entries, being not articles on books but articles on folktales (Cinderella and the Pied Piper of Hamelin). The third fits into the other category, since it is a book he illustrated. Whether it's a "picture book" is open to interpretation and would appear to be irrelevant. And "by Arthur Rackham" is grossly misleading in this construction, imply sole authorship.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not picture books, and also not defined as books illustrated by Rackham. Robina Fox (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2018 (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:Female geologists

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 17#Category:Female_geologists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Women in geology, Category:Women earth scientists, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 6. Will also involve renaming all the subcategories. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2018 (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:Israeli volleyball biography stubs

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 26 biographies in the permanent category. Significantly less than the 60 minimum for a stub category, and some of the articles have moved beyond stub stage. Propose deleting category as it stands. No prejudice against recreation once there are sufficient tagged articles. Upmerge {{Israel-volleyball-bio-stub}} to Category:Israeli sportspeople stubs and Category:European volleyball biography stubs. (Because of culture clashes, Israel plays all sports in European leagues.) Dawynn (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2018 (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:Sextet sibling groups

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 Category:Sextet sibling groups to parent Category:Sibling groups. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: having six people in a family at some generation is not WP:DEFINING. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (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:Wikipedia Cabal decrees

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, by decree of the Cabal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent. This is all hilarious material, but the nominated category is just a handful of essays, and that's what the parent category is too (plus associated templates). The only difference is that the ones in the nominated category are supposedly official decrees of the fictional cabal, and that's not a good reason for a subcategory. In the end, all it does is bury some of the humor pages deeper into a category structure for no reason. (Disclaimer: I created the parent category, to gather all the cabal-related joke pages and essays into one spot; afterwards, I realized the "decrees" cluster is illusory.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:04, 10 January 2018 (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:Spanish language youtubers

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 and rename to Category:Spanish-language YouTubers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_22#Category:Youtubers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:YouTube_video_producers —swpbT go beyond 17:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 26 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisting comment: Do we start categorising YouTubers by language, or not? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, fix spelling to "YouTubers". I have to go with keep. A category series like this is arguably at least as useful as Category:YouTubers by nationality, and is consistent with Category:Films by language, etc. (the fact that there's some overlap with Category:Films by country has never been an issue). They're just completely different criteria that exist for different reasons (classification by jurisdiction and classification by language of communication, which is trans-national). So, yes, we would eventually have Category:YouTubers by language. That said, I think at some point we'll need a more generalized category. YouTube already has competition, and is unlikely to last forever. These people should ultimately by classified by a broader term, whether that be vloggers or online broadcasters or whatever; I think we'll have a better idea what that should be when the time comes to do it. The long-term problem with Category:YouTubers is that's its too specific in the same way that "Category:Actors on HBO" or "Category:WordPress.com bloggers" would be. YouTube is a conduit, not a publisher or a publication (in WP:CS1 citation template terms, it's a |via=). While we might keep Category:The New York Times writers (not quite a PERFCAT) we eventually would not keep these YT ones at this name, especially given that some of them are already on multiple sites, and tools like IFTTT make it easier and easier to e-publish simultaneously (or in a timed manner) on multiple platforms. Give it 5 years? 2? Who knows.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:51, 10 January 2018 (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:Administrative territorial entities

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. This discussion has been open for 81 days, and relisting generated no further comments, so there's point keeping it open.
There was general unhappiness with the term "administrative territorial entities", but no agreement on what label is best for a set which could be described verbosely as "geographical areas created by humans for political or administrative purposes (e.g. countries, states, counties, provinces, wards, constitencies, civil parishes, raions, oblasts), rather than physically-derived areas (e.g. islands, continents), biologically-science-defined areas (e.g. biogeographic realms/ecozones), or divisions created for other types of human study (e.g. cultural areas, or zones in economic geography)."
Maybe a discussion at WikiProject Geography would help to clarify what terminology is used by English-language geographers, and maybe form the basis of a further CfD?
Pinging the participants, in case my suggestion is any help: @Fayenatic london, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: This category holds countries, states, counties, cities etc. It was created by user:Androoox, a sockpuppet of blocked editor user:Tobias Conradi, as "humangeographic territorial entities". It was later manually renamed to "Administrative territorial entities" by user:Eldizzino, another sock of the same editor. That editor has recently been using various IP socks, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi. Some of his recent work has been using the CFD Speedy page to rename various branches of the hierarchy to use the same category naming pattern. The fullest justification was "not about some physical entities (e.g. woodlands) but about Category:Administrative territorial entities".[1] This seems fair enough, but one counter-argument is that the name is rather long and may be longer than necessary. It is high time that the naming of this hierarchy was submitted to a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other parts of the hierarchy were originally created by other editors, e.g. "Territories by language", but this was progressively renamed by socks of Tobias Conradi: [3] (speedy nomination, which was opposed); [4] (out of process); [5] (out of process again). – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just summing up, we have three alternatives here and they all three have a disadvantage, but none of the disadvantages is particularly huge:
  1. keep current name, with a made-up term, with a long name, but it is an accurate descriptor of the content
  2. Category:Countries and subdivisions, it does not cover every type of territory that is in the category, but it is aligns best with current terminology in the category tree
  3. Category:Territories, with an ambiguous term (in some countries?), it is short and accurate (if you take the broader meaning of territory in mind)
Frankly, as they all three have their pros and cons, I wouldn't oppose any of the three. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 October_29 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 10 January 2018 (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:History of management

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 Category:History of management to Category:History of business.
Editors may wish to further refine the categorisation of the two articles currently in the category: Management fad, Scientific management. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article. Correct me if I'm wrong but Category:History of business seems to be a more suitable merge target than either of the two parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- Business history is a recognised academic subject, distinct from economic history, though they are of course related. One of the objectives of business history journals is producing case studies for business schools, whose object is to teach management. Commerce may (as suggested) be slightly wider, but is not treated as an academic subject in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 10 January 2018 (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:Post-grunge lit

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: speedy delete per WP:G4 as Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion ... and WP:TROUT @OnBeyondZebrax, the creator of both, for ignoring consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a copy of Category:Post-grunge authors that was deleted earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2018 (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:Fictional pangolins

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only two entries, one of which is a redirect. Both entries are fictional beings that only resemble pangolins. The species is clearly too rare to have enough fictional counterparts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One article of dubious notability, and a Pokemon critter. A picture book about a pet pangolin might be terribly cute but it is clearly a sub-genre whose time has not come. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been revealed whether or not Pokemon are mammals, has it? Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (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:Works set in Kenya

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, and disperse contents to Category:Works about Kenya and Category:Kenya in fiction. (Only 4 items in the category: Category:Films set in Kenya‎, Category:Novels set in Kenya‎, Juma and the Magic Jinn, Out of Africa). I will list the cat at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Works set in Kenya into Category:Works about Kenya
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.