Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:Chess films[edit]

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) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need two categories. This one was created days ago, likely to match the preferred naming structure of siblings in Category:Sports films by sport, which is "Foo films." I prefer the target category, which has been around since 2005 and matches the X of Y structure of other parent categories. Whatever we decide, we don't need two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quantification is obviously impossible, but in this case the films in the category really are about chess, it's not as if there is one accidental chess game in the film. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2016 (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:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. In another of today's CFDs, it is argued that that category should not be deleted because this one exists. That is a false argument. This is clearly an award category, which WP does not allow except in the most notable cases (such as Nobel Prizes and some national awards). I am therefore nominating this. The normal outcome for an award category is "listify and delete": lists do the job much better than categories because the winners can be placed in date order and some details of the citation can be given. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I clicked through a dozen articles (Major League and Negro Leagues, different decades) and all mention this prominently in the introduction. Unlike most halls of fame which induct lots of people every year in order to sell enough tickets to their annual banquet (not kidding), Cooperstown seems less worried about their catering bill and has been stingy with giving this award which keeps it defining. Winning this award often get's a player's number retired and an area honoring them in their former team's stadium. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I am flattered by the solidarity with my earlier nomination that this entry represents though. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep the National Baseball Hall of Fame is baseball's highest lifetime honour. It is a "most notable case." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, in an effort to get more eyes on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to say that nominating this category for as a way advancing the argument to delete Category:Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame inductees (below) is just ridiculous and shows no comprehension of what the Cooperstown Baseball Hall of Fame means to the lives and legacy of pro ballplayers. It's a false equivalency. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose To consider enshrinement in Cooperstown an "award" is to badly underestimate its importance. This is basically the "Nobel Prize" for a baseball player. It's their most defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above on a WP:POINTY nomination. Membership in this category is most definitely a defining characteristic of the individuals represented here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That, for example, Cap Anson was given this award some years after his death is hardly a defining characteristic; it is (currently) mentioned in the lead of his article, but so are many other facts (such as his bankruptcy). And, even if it is a defining characteristic for some recipients, we don't need a category because the recipients are in plenty of more defining categories and (as pointed out by the nominator) a list does the job much better. That the existence of this category may encourage the creation of (or non-deletion of) categories for lesser awards may be a further reason to delete it. DexDor (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really can't believe this would be nominated in the first place. As others have said, this is the highest award a ballplayer can receive; it's hardly a trivial achievement or one of which the recipients have little in common. The 215 major league players enshrined over the last eighty years (an average of less than three inductees per year) represent over a hundred and forty years of the "national pastime," and of these over half were inducted posthumously, meaning that barely a hundred ballplayers have been inducted during their lifetimes. I think that makes it fairly exclusive, when you consider that there have been over seventeen thousand players during that span. P Aculeius (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those facts ("highest award", "fairly exclusive" etc) are good reasons why the award should be mentioned in the articles about recipients (and that there should be a list of recipients). But this discussion is about how we categorize players. DexDor (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently defining award (akin to a lifetime Oscar or a knighthood or such) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the career of these people is defining, but this is as a post-retirement award. Fair enough to listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2016 (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:Personal Life[edit]

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: speedily deleted by user:J Milburn under WP:G2. As it has been repeatedly recreated, I will also WP:SALT it. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category page seems to be an attempt to create an article; it duplicates MADHU SUDHANA REDDY KASI REDDY 331dot (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under whichever CSD the admin thinks is most appropriate. DexDor (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- seems to be one section of an article sitting in category space. And probably on a NN person. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense category. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2016 (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:Transmetals[edit]

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 now there is no need to merge, all articles are already in a subcat of Category:Transformers characters and having the latter merged requires a new nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category mostly gutted by merges and deletions (including the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmetals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmetal 2), meaning that it's now underpopulated. This seems to be an example of over-categorisation. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I was going to vote to merge to Category:Transformers (franchise), but I see that one of the parents is Category:Transformers characters, though whether that should be allowed is questionable. My rule is "one franchise: one category". Such franchises are liable to generate a mass of fragmented categories due to the creation of a lot of unnecessary articles on characters. When these are merged back to the franchise article or a single characters article a great deal becomes redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2016 (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:Persecution by early Christians[edit]

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) 00:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: align with main article Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. Nomination was opposed when nominated for speedy rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename discussion
  • Oppose the proposed name. Agree that it should change but not to this. "Persecution" is too POV. Wait until the main article has been through a rename proposal that I will initiate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the failure of my proposal to win support, I now withdraw my objection. It's still wrong IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. There was a persecution of pagans by Early Christians that was not only restricted to the Late Roman Empire. Further, there's obviously a systematic attempt to make all the "persecutions by Christians" articles and categories disappear, as in the very strange renaming and rewriting of the now so-called History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance (!). Even further, there's already an specific article about the Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire which fits within this category, but this category is not limited to that. --MaeseLeon (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename Per WP:C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. The main article is Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire and a recent Requested Move just failed here.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: are you saying that there should be no category including both the persecution of pagans and non-pagans by early Christians? The Arians seem to have been persecuted from 325 onwards; "heresy" was formally outlawed in 380, and from that time other Christians were persecuted for holding or espousing certain unorthodox beliefs. The Nestorians were condemned in 431, and the Monophysites in 451. Is there a sharp delineation between the persecution of particular Christian sects or beliefs by other Christians that occurs at the fall of the Western Empire, which justifies limiting this category to the late Roman Empire? The suppression of Arianism continued through the seventh century, two hundred years later. As currently titled, the article covers all religious persecution by early Christians, irrespective of who is being persecuted or whether the persecution occurred before or after AD 476. That seems to be a useful category. P Aculeius (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like these are two very different topics. I wouldn't mind having a category like Category:Mutual persecution of Christians in late antique Christianity provided that an article about the topic comes first and provided we have a substantial number of related articles, e.g. about Christian people who have been persecuted this way. For the time being, the category that we are discussing mainly contains articles about persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Having moved the main article to that name the category should follow, though it is something of a hotchpotch of persecutors and persecuted; purge if necessary. I have no objection to Category:Persecution of heretics in the late Roman Empire, but that is not what this is about. I think the Nestorians did not persecute the Monophysites much. It was mostly done by the state-led orthodox, though I may be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the Nestorians were persecuting the Monophysites. I said that both were persecuted by other Christians. The question is whether there ought to be a category for persecutions by early Christians. Since early Christians didn't only persecute pagans, eliminating a category that would include all religious persecutions by early Christians would seem to be a mistake. The fact that other persecutions may not have been added to the category yet doesn't affect the usefulness of the category; it merely argues that more attention should be given to included topics. If you want to redefine the scope of the category as proposed, are you saying that there shouldn't be a category for all types of religious persecution by early Christians, irrespective of who they were persecuting or whether they occurred before or after 476? P Aculeius (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we limiting the category to match its new title, and then recreate it to put in the various persecutions by Christian groups of each other, or of Jews, Zoroastrians, Egyptian adherents, or what-have-you? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in doing that, if the category as it exists is sufficiently broad for it. It would make more sense to simply create the proposed new category, instead of renaming this one and narrowing its scope. I don't think it matters if there's a lot of overlap in the beginning, since each category can evolve as new articles are added. P Aculeius (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep the nominated category anyway because the title is wrong. Early Christians didn't persecute, they were persecuted. Persecution by Christians didn't start any earlier than in the course of the 4th century, i.e. in the late Roman Empire, as the article title says. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2016 (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:Macroeconomics and monetary economics[edit]

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) 00:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these are two categories having 2 + 3 subcategories without any room for expansion. Note that the category names are derived from the JEL classification codes, but there is no policy that Wikipedia categories have to follow one particular classification scheme. Also, there is no article Macroeconomics and monetary economics or Health, education, and welfare economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no good reason for breaking with the JEL classifications. There is no rule as to the number of immediate subcategories a category should have. JQ (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't mind re-using JEL insofar it aids navigation. Macroecon and monetary policy have some overlap but the health/education/welfare grouping doesn't make any sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2016 (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:Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

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) 02:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT (subcat) and WP:SMALLCAT (parent)
The Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame recognizes Olympic competitors for Canada but we already categorize those same people in Category:Olympic competitors for Canada so the inductees category is completely redundant. (The parent category contains nothing but the main article with little room for growth.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Walor as the parent category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Olympics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point about teams and coaches not being competitors; I should have said there is no one defined by being a Canadian Olympian that isn't already somewhere in the Category:Canada at the Olympics tree. I don't doubt that being a Canadian Olympian is defining, just whether hundreds of people receiving this award years after the fact is. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the inductees category as being WP:NON-DEFINING of the recipients (I picked two articles to look at - one just mentioned this HoF in a list of many awards and the other made no mention of it at all in the article text - and both were in plenty of more appropriate categories). The other category will then contain just one member and can be upmerged/deleted. As is usual in such cases, a list is _much_ better (e.g. it can have redlinks) and the category is then unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another category for a NN award. No objection to listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not sufficiently defining. They are more defined for being Olympians. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rarely mentioned in the articles so seems non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (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:Energy Globe Award winners[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Energy Globe Awards are given to multiple people, cities and organizations every year in multiple countries as well as at the international level. The articles in the category do mention the award in passing but it seems non-defining. I already listed the contents of the category here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Gralo as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Energy. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCAWARD. Category not needed with a list of winners in the main award article. -- GreenC 04:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCAWARD. Another NN award category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems that many of the award winners aren't notable, or at least don't have articles. Fails OCAWARD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_14&oldid=1138410109"