Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26[edit]

Category:Immortality[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Immortality to Category:Longevity, pruning out the articles of examples of immortals (which shouldn't be there anyway)

Once the examples of so-called immortals are pruned out, this is a WP:SMALLCAT - the articles immortality and Immortality in fiction, a couple questionable list pages (which may have been listified categories), and some pages that better belong in Category:Senescence - which is already a subcat of Category:Longevity.

Also, per immortality there are many definitions to what it means to be "immortal", from enhanced durability, to no physical effects of aging, to spiritual immortality, as well as figures from fiction, myth, and legend.

This is just a "catchall" with too-broad-to-define inclusion criteria.Longevity would make this more clear that this is about increased lifespan due to slow or no aging physically. - jc37 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nom- jc37 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this category could also be made a child of Category:Longevity with all articles getting moved over there except the ones which are about indefinite longevity or actual immortality in physical terms. If they are merged (and maybe also if they're not) articles such as Immortality in fiction should be moved as well to e.g. Immortality and longevity in fiction. --Fixuture (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose There do seem to be a bunch of articles which are in the wrong category, but I don't see the "once the so-called immortals are pruned out" as a given. They do belong here, for the most part. Seyasirt (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The category is immortality not immortals, so no, regardless of this cfd, such examples will be pruned anyway. - jc37 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge there is a difference between living a long time (possible with humans) and living forever (not possible with humans, but possible in fiction). How about first determining whether the articles about fiction pertain to longevity or to immortality and setting up categories for them. In any case, the immortality categories should be subcats of the longevity categories, not deleted. Hmains (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This category isn't about fiction. the categories concerning immortality in fiction (and comics) have all already been deleted due to cfd. So, in this case, living an indefinitely long time IS immortality. Or to put it into wikipedia terms, Immortality is a subtopic of longevity. Please also see: Longevity#Biological_immortality. I understand if not everyone knows what longevity and senescence are. I'd be fine with a category redirect. - jc37 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Distinctive concept in religion and fiction. Longevity can not describe deities. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and neither does this category... This cat, even if kept will be pruned to only those articles about immortality. So your comment doesn't appear to be applicable in this case. - jc37 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong as it covers fictional deities and devine beings. Dimadick (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The category is appropriate to myth and religion. This is different from longevity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 4 December 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:Wikipedia essays by BullRangifer[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose and is the only category like this. Either BullRangifer has a user essay, which is already identified as BR's by being in that editors' userspace, or BR was the first editor of a Wikipedia-namespace essay, which is editable by the entire community, and will not remain single-author indefinitely. (In fact, of the three pages in the category, the two that are not in BR's userspace have both been edited by others.) Nothing personal with regard to BR – I like the essays – we just don't need categories like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem here. It's not a big deal. It helps me find and monitor them. I see that several others aren't in it anymore, so I don't know where they are. Not good. I wasn't aware that this was the only similar one (at present), because I got the idea from other similar categories. Maybe they have been deleted. None of this is part of the encyclopedia, so we allow a lot more latitude. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We should not have categories for individual users. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selete - if you want to keep track of your pages, a list in your userspace is reasonable, but a category isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A MISUSE OF CATEGORY SPACE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 4 December 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:Social media experts[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. In a replacement category is desirable for some of the former members, they are listed here: [1]. – Fayenatic London 23:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective category. Trivialist (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there are quite a few people in this category with a relevant job title e.g. social media manager. Can we perhaps turn this into Category:People with social media occupations or something like that? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea; I'd support that too. Might discourage some of the obviously self-created bios about "social media experts." Trivialist (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, after all we have other categories such as Category:Experts on terrorism. Considering the press and people's lives in general are dominated by social media in the early 21st century, this seems to be a relevant category. Though clearly we will want to weed out anyone who isn't proven to be described as an expert in this field. Sionk (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - relevant entries could be moved over to Category:Internet theorists and a new category such as Category:Social media managers could be created. While the category is very relevant I think it's too hard for us to separate between experts and non-experts here (or can anybody suggest a method by which this can be done well enough?). --Fixuture (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem I see with this category is that "social media expert" is essentially a title that anybody can (and frequently does) simply bestow on themselves, without necessarily waiting for reliable sources to actually cover them in that context. And self-appointed social media consultants are one of the subject areas that AFD has a constant problem with, to boot. I wouldn't necessarily object to more specific categories for more objectively sourceable terminologies, but this is too vague and subjective as currently constituted. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 23 December 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:Omnicons[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. No need to merge, the articles are in Category:Autobots already (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. "The Omnicons were a sub-group of the Autobots in the Transformers: Energon series. They were basic-sized figures who were supposed to have an affinity with energon, being able to sense it and forge it weapons." Few, if any, of these characters are notable; two articles are currently included (I suspect there were once more, but these articles are slowly but surely being consolidated) and one of them is at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now I don't presume the outcome of AfD nominations but I would hold off on a subcategory until we get up to 5 or so articles, not 2. (Conceptually this should be an upmerge to Category:Autobots but both articles are already in that parent category so it's moot.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent. My principle is one franchise: one category. This franchise may require several, but not more than one for each franchise series. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 4 December 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_November_26&oldid=1074817272"