Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:Songs from Spider-Man soundtracks[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 9#Category:Songs from Spider-Man soundtracks. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on Category:Songs from James Bond films and I believe a more defining description. Otherwise, following the Batman example, they can be moved to a broader Category:Spider-Man music (see Category:Batman music). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spider-Man music is way to generic, for the Bond alternative instead.★Trekker (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree and I think a similar Batman songs category may be warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those songs have articles? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rise Above 1 --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:06, 5 December 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:Acid fast bacilli[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: it has been raised on the Category talk:Acid fast bacilli page already – and the reason given there is correct: a hyphen is appropriate here, not space. cherkash (talk) 22:39, 4 December 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:Buildings and structures damaged in the 2018 Anchorage earthquake[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A search of the category namespace revealed that there is no other category of this type in existence. The parent categories suggest that it is really intended to be a category about the earthquake itself rather than buildings and structures, and was only created in this form because the earthquake category would likely contain only the main article. You can also go to the article as it develops and see subtle signs of a bizarro POV, namely that we should be giving more weight to this earthquake than to the 1964 earthquake. That point is not necessarily relevant to a category discussion other than to provide background to the idea that this category amounts to puffery/window dressing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to this nom, could you please define what you mean by "a bizarro (point of view)? Every edit I have made was done with balance in mind. For example, I am the only editor - literally, the only one - who added information about the significant damage in the Mat-Su. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simple: the amount of energy spent covering this earthquake versus the amount of energy spent covering the 1964 earthquake defies the reality of the situation. It's called appropriate weight. I fully understand that the typical Wikipedian these days is only interested in picking low-hanging fruit and that whatever the news media is pushing today affords excellent opportunities to achieve that. What nobody seems to understand is when you add up all the other times it's happened, you end up building a news site and tricking yourself into believing that you're building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rude remarks about "the typical Wikipedian" do not help the collaborative effort, nor do complaints about what people haven't done. If you think the 1964 earthquake needs more attention the solution is in your own hands.Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with replies/comments I believe earthquakes that cause widespread damage to notable structures, roads and infrastructure as this one did, can and should have a category linking the related articles. This should not be true of every Wikipedia article about earthquakes, only those with widespread damage. The 1992 Landers earthquake would be excluded, for example. It was of even greater intensity, but did not damage many, if any, notable buildings. This category title may be too long (I don't know why that would be a major concern, if it's an accurate descriptor, but whatever). But in the least, this earthquake is notable enough to have a category linking related pages. (The above is my main !vote here)

(Reply to other comments) Regarding RadioKAOS, I believe RadioKAOS is something of an intellectual bully. I don't say that lightly. He viciously and snarkingly attacks anyone who disagrees with his own vision of Wikipedia, and refuses to see any other point of view. I have sincerely complimented him more than once. I have offered to collaborate with him. Hell, I have done everything to make him happy, short of giving him a Barnstar. Not long ago, after complimenting him, I asked if he would be interested in collaborating on a new article for Beth Weldon, the new mayor of Juneau, Alaska. He ignored me, even though I respectfully replied to the last message he left on my own talk page during the same time period. I am completely with the editor Rathfelder regarding RadioKAOS' attitude and condescending tone taken with other good faith editors.

(Resume my !vote rationale) That being said, if there is a better title for this category, I will happily consider it. I don't believe that linking buildings that were damaged during the same catastrophic natural disaster in a category is inappropriate. In fact, I believe it is helpful. (Referring to second paragraph) But again, rather than collaborate with me he criticizes. It's an old and predictable pattern with him. Wikipedia deserves better. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-defining. This appears to be an attempt to use the category system to create a list. Some of the articles (e.g. Glenn Highway) make no mention of the earthquake (hence I don't propose listifying). See also previous CFDs e.g. damaged by arson and affected by hurricane. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aspersions aside, this is not a defining attribute of the television station or schools listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the not a defining characteristic point. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not !voting again here, but just pointing out that there are similar cats, including "Category:Buildings and structures destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake". I don't believe that a building needs to be completely destroyed, with its material removed to a landfill, for it to be related to an earthquake article on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:31, 13 December 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:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine by year[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Terrorist incidents in Ukraine+subcats contains only 10 articles, so need to subdivide it chronologically. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress, please wait. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev, please stop and discuss. There do not appear to be enough articles to justify a by-year categorisation scheme for Terrorist incidents in Ukraine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, may be not now, but the category will grow. Isn't it possible for the category to grow? Once again, please wait before deleting it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: it would have to grow a long way before it was feasible to divide it by year. I have reverted your attempts today to bloat these categories by padding them out with articles which are not about terrorist incidents, such as Little green men (an article about an armed group who appear to have been involved in no violence) and Mikhail Tolstykh (a soldier in the War in Donbass).
Please also note WP:TERRORIST. Assigning the label to a person, group or incident needs to be done with great care.
Note e.g. that Category:Terrorists was deleted WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists.
Again ... please stop creating and populating these categories, and start discussing them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are not necessary. There are not enough terrorost attacks in Umraine in a decade to justify dividing them up. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 8 December 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:Decades in Ukraine by oblast[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Wikipedia's coverage of Ukraine is nowhere near extensive enough to justify creating by-decade categories for each of its 24 oblasts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 4 December 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:October 1995 events in Ukraine[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT]: only one article, and not part of a series. There is no Category:1995 events in Ukraine by month, and no other Category:YYYY events in Ukraine by month. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 4 December 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:1995 murders in Ukraine[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 including additional sibling Category:2015 murders in Ukraine that was created on 7 Dec. – Fayenatic London 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Murders in Ukraine by year, and we don't seem to have enough articles on murders in Ukraine to justify creating a by-year category system.
The category's lone article Shakhtar Stadium (Donetsk) is already adequately categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine there would be enough notable murders in any year to need a cat. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are currently only some 20 articles about murders in Ukraine, there is no need to diffuse them by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have taken the liberty to add the 1996 sibling to the nomination. It appeared to have been tagged on December 4 together with the 1995 category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 7 December 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:1995 in Donetsk[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not part of a series, i.e. there is no Category:Years in Donetsk or even Category:Years in Donetsk Oblast.
The lone article Shakhtar Stadium (Donetsk) is already adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress, please wait. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev, please stop and discuss. There do not appear to be enough articles to justify a by-year categorisation scheme for the city of Donetsk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like the other small cats above. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are currently only 6 articles in Category:History of Donetsk so there is no need to diffuse at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subcategorizing Ukrainian history by oblast would have the potential to be legitimate — years in Canada and the United States are subcatted by province or state whenever possible, for comparison — but they aren't normally subcategorized by individual city, and even by oblast would require (a) more content to populate the categories than Donetsk has at present, and (b) a comprehensive effort to create the appropriate categories for all oblasts, not just Donetsk in isolation. That said, I also want to call attention to a large cluster of category parentage that will cascade into a series of empty categories if this gets deleted: Category:1995 in Donetsk Oblast, Category:1995 in Ukraine by oblast, Category:Years in Ukraine by oblast, Category:20th century in Donetsk Oblast, Category:Decades in Donetsk Oblast. They haven't been explicitly tagged as part of this or the other related nominations, so I just wanted to point them out so they don't get missed in the process (which untagged parent categories of deleted content sometimes do.) Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 8 December 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:Wikipedians who are nonviolence advocates[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Fits the definition of an inappropriate user category as a category that "includes any grouping of users by support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia." VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:VegaDark: It is related to Wikipedia (and to our editing), please read below...but perhaps there is a better way to fix this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting it is unrelated to Wikipedia or even your editing. I'm suggesting it violates our guideline on user categories. There are plenty of categories that relate to Wikipedia or editing that do not facilitate collaboration or otherwise violate WP:USERCAT. I think a userbox or notice on your userpage is a good solution as you mention below. VegaDark (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopefully all Wikipedians fit this. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Legacypac: I agree with you, but I became concerned that some non-Wikipedians might try to manipulate some of my editing (for example about lynchings), take them out of context, and accuse me of inciting violence, when I was just relaying content from reliable third-party sources to create historical/encyclopedic articles. Should we create a userbox instead? Please ping me when you reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I could simply write, "I am a non-violent person" on my userpage, but I feel this applies to any editor who creates controversial topics. I was trying to help the community by creating this category.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I edit in controversial areas like terrorism, white supremacy and whatever else I come across that looks interesting. I let my editing speak for itself and so should you. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 8 December 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:Fauna of Bahrain[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, the Greater flamingo is found in Kuwait or the Green sea turtle is found in the UAE is non-defining. Example of a previous similar CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:03, 4 December 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:Members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey by session[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parents Category:Terms of Grand National Assembly of Turkey and Category:Legislators by term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 4 December 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:Gujrat[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per head article Gujrat, Pakistan. The head article was boldly moved[1] last month from Gujrat City to its current title by @Uanfala. That move looks correct, but a WP:C2D speedy rename of the category is not applicable, since there was no discussion.
Note that the current title is ambiguous with Gujrat District and Gujrat Tehsil. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Per nom, consistency with main article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:58, 11 December 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:Belgian supercentenarians[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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet more GRG overcategorization. It consists of 4 pages, 3 of which are redirects to the 4th. Unnecessary for obvious reasons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 4 December 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:Swedish supercentenarians[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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More GRG overcategorization. Only 3 pages in this category, and 2 are redirects to the 3rd page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:04, 4 December 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 supercentenarians[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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only 2 pages. Part of the extreme overcategorization the GRG editors left us with years ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 4 December 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.

Free State of Fiume[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/Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small categories, little scope to expand. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 4 December 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:1564 establishments in the Crimean Khanate[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 and merge. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - a clear case of something useful which has to undergo development. The Crimean Khanate lasted for more than 3 centuries and is well documented. It is a clear case of easy solution by expansion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​ then let's merge as WP:SOFTDELETE until there is sufficient population to justify categorising by year rather than century. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a merge into by decade 1560s category, but centuries might be too broad - so neutral for now.GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the meanwhile i created century level tree for the Khanate, which would not contradict this proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 13:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while looking at the contents of Category:Crimean Khanate it appears that not too many articles have been written about this topic, it is clearly too early to diffuse by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I do not think we are likely to get enough content to need decade categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Crimean Khanate was an indepdent country. No good reason to elide its existence like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (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:Chegwin family[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorisation (only three entries) Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing wrong with a "family" category with only three members. We even have them with just two. Still a useful categorisation. Edwardx (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and the articles already refer to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT imagine if we had cats for every family with three notable people; yikes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 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:IBM products[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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By its own admission, this category is not descriptive of its contents. Not all of its members are products in the sense that they were offered for sale, and some of its members describe hardware and software that are components of a larger system, which were products (and some possible not; I haven't viewed all members due to the large numbers). In 2008, a simpler system existed where we had Category:IBM hardware, Category:IBM software, and Category:IBM services. Regardless of whether something was experiment, proprietary (for internal use only), a component, or a product, one of these three categories was suitable without resorting to apologizing for inaccuracies. In the same year, this category was created, and the three categories were depopulated and redirected to this category without consensus or any explanation (that I could find). This category should be deleted and the previous system reinstated. The distinction between IBM things that were products, those that weren't, and those that were proprietary components of products leads to self-contradictions and isn't useful. 99Electrons (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I support this idea. Maybe keep IBM Products as an empty higher-level category containing the more specific ones. Reyk YO! 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Category:IBM computers, Category:IBM services and Category:IBM software already exist as subcategories. There is no reason to remove the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For one thing, a straight delete would take Category:IBM software out of Category:IBM. I don't see a problem with a component being categorized as a product. Most of the category text should be removed. DexDor (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:IBM software (and others like it) can be simply placed into Category:IBM. The IBM, IBM products, IBM computers/services/software hierarchy is needlessly tall, hinders navigation as a result; and fails to be a superset of its contents; it's not just whether components of products could be deemed to be products or not. Removing the category text doesn't resolve the contradiction of non-products (not components), such as the Harvard Mark I computer that IBM was commissioned to develop for Harvard University, being in a category for products. 99Electrons (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article begins with "The IBM ..." and says "The ASCC was developed and built by IBM ..." so why do you think it doesn't belong in the category? DexDor (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it was a one time creation, made for a specific purpose, rather than being built and sold repeatedly to multiple customers. If anything, the product, in this case would have been the services of IBM's research division, that built the hardware, because those services have been sold to other customers. To illustrate with an example: its like hiring a carpenter to create custom cabinets for you in your kitchen. The cabinets that they make are not their product; rather, their services would be the product that they sell. Of course, in the real world, carpenters don't have product catalogs, but I hope the principle has been explained. A really paranoid android (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still a product - regardless of the number produced. Even if something is designed (e.g. it might have product requirements, product specification etc), but the number built is zero it is still a product (although we would be less likely to have a wp article about it). It makes sense to subcategorize Category:IBM into categories for facilities, staff, products etc. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support this deletion - but not for the proposed replacement. There is no need to burden wikipedia with the complexity of IBM products. Just reduce it all to Category:IBM. My rationale for this is that even with the categorization that the nominator proposed, there are edge cases that defy categorization. For example, the DataPower product is sold as an appliance where the key innovation is that the XSLT processor is implemented in hardware. But the device also includes software on top of the appliance, and is available in virtual (software only) form as well. Is this hardware, or software? A similar argument can be made for the Netezza products as well. What about SaaS products - they are clearly services (the terminal 'S' in the acronym), but they are also software? The best thing is to stay away from all this complexity. --A really paranoid android (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that only the "products" category has been nominated, so the discussion is not about its subcategories. The question whether "services" might be ambiguous should be discussed some other time. As for products, the category has numerous siblings in Category:Products by company and I am not convinced that the term "products" would be so much more ambiguous for IBM than for other companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure that you're right. In the rationale provided by the nominator, he/she says that the current category should be gotten rid off and replaced by a categorization scheme that existed in the past. My comments were reflective of that. If that re-categorization is taken off the table, then doing nothing is the better option, though IMHO, I still think that there is not a good reason to have a category of products made by a specific company. The product catalogs of companies world-wide morph all the time, and we really want the valuable cycles of wikipedia contributors to be spent on things more valuable than keeping in synch with such lists. A really paranoid android (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many differences between a company's catalogue of (all) their current products and a category that lists the articles we have about the company's products (including those that are historical). A catalogue might contain many products that we don't have an article about (e.g. because of notability).  If a computer was an IBM product and we didn't have an IBM products category then editors would be likely to place the article about the computer directly in Category:IBM. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose clearly this is the correct category for the contents. Without this category, the IBM category tree becomes messy and unhelpful for reader navigation to the underlying articles. Hmains (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain how this is sound: Deep Blue (chess computer), Category:IBM supercomputers, Category:IBM computers, Category:IBM products. (For those who don't know, Deep Blue is an experimental supercomputer built for one purpose: Beat Garry Kasparov at chess. It's not a commercial system, or a research project that aimed to produce technology for commercialization. It wasn't commissioned by an IBM client, or installed at IBM customer.) Without this category, only three more categories would be added to Category:IBM: Category:IBM hardware, Category:IBM services, and Category:IBM software. Explain how this would become "messy", and how contradiction of having things that are not products in a hierarchy that begins with Category:IBM products, is neat and helpful to the user. The present categorization system is more confusing and unhelpful to the reader. If navigating downwards, it's possible the reader may conclude, erroneously, that Wikipedia doesn't have articles or coverage for things like Deep Blue, because it isn't a product. If navigating upwards, from an article that is about an IBM thing that isn't a product, only to find that the root category is for products, I'd expect there be confusion. 99Electrons (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only now I realize what exactly you are after. Perhaps other editors couldn't follow either. If I understand correctly, your proposal consists of two steps: step 1 is the re-creation of Category:IBM hardware as an extra category layer between Category:IBM products and Category:IBM computers, which would reduce Category:IBM products to only 3 instead of 8 subcategories, and step 2 is a merge of Category:IBM products to Category:IBM. This is quite different from the plain delete proposal that the nomination started off with. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, in the beginning, I thought that having the products category deleted was sufficient; and that the products category's contents would be appropriately categorized before its deletion to avoid any breakage. It seemed obvious to me that there were better alternatives for the members of the products category, which was why the nomination didn't elaborate as to where its contents should go after its deletion. Rereading my nomination, I concede it wasn't as well written as it could have been (let that be a lesson as to why one shouldn't edit Wikipedia while multi-tasking!), and it was incomplete in regards to what the categorization system should look like instead. Regarding the two-step plan you've proposed; it works and it should replace my nomination. 99Electrons (talk) 00:51, 10 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_4&oldid=877516677"