Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 3

< August 2 August 4 >

August 3

Category:Pentannual journals

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:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pentannual journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't find the word "pentannual" in any dictionary. When I google it, I get hits saying that it means "every 5 years", which obviously is not intended here. Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My mistake, used the wrong word here. Chris ☮(Talk) 08:27, 4 August 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:Songs written by Courtney Harrell

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No article on category subject, see no reason to have a cat on their works. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of her five songs is written by at least one other person who is not the artist performing the song, so I have a real issue with saying "the fact that Courtney Harrell wrote this song is a defining feature of this song." There's got to be some sort of lower limit where this becomes WP:TRIVIA. I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan. This writer has a page at AllMusic [1] and Discogs,[2] but I can't find any sources that might allow us to create an article about her. IMHO, co-writing songs as one of many does not confer sufficient notability to make that contribution defining. Her self-promotional page [3] highlights three songs, none of which have not achieved articles in Wikipedia (e.g. theme single from Think Like a Man); although she claims "Grammy honors", this is only for contributing to the writing of one song on F.A.M.E. (album), and not the one which won "Best Song". The best that I can find is this[4] for the Kelly Rowland song "You Changed", but it has no article and I can't see a way to work that citation into the article on the album. Having a category seems in effect promotional (but I do not denigrate the good faith work of Richhoncho, who created it). – Fayenatic London 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that we typically do categorize by songwriter, so this would be an exception if deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the discussion above there is sufficient argumentation on why we would make an exception in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 11 August 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:Davarzan County geography 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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A sparsely populated county in Iran. Permanent category only has the 5 articles, which have all been tagged as stubs. No need for a stub category at this time. Propose deleting stub category and upmerging template to Category:Razavi Khorasan Province geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a new county, split from Sabzevar County. A quick look at the template would indicate that there were likely 50+ entries in the category that no one bothered to relabel. I bothered, now there are 50 or so members of the category. I think a little more investigation than this cat doesn't have x many is probably in order; rather this cat can never have x many, which is clearly here disproved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your work! Seeing that the category is now a more suitable size, I am withdrawing my nomination. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 5 August 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:Royal Air Force airmen

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 to rename or merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a gender-neutral title, since this title includes women. If "aircrew" is an inappropriate term, then please suggest a gender-neutral alternative. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming proposal withdrawn. See new merger proposal below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Comment The actual RAF rank is Aircraftmen, which has absolutely no chance of being embraced by the nominator! In practice though, this category has mostly non-career military people who served in some capacity in the RAF. I'm wondering if upmerging this to Category:Royal Air Force personnel but my knowledge is with the USAF so I would want a British perspective here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The RAF is not gender neutral and has never been so. Airmen ≠ Aircrew I was an aircraftman for 12 years but was never aircrew. There are aircraftmen and there are aircraftwomen in the RAF and it would be quite reasonable to call the category Royal Air Force airmen and airwomen. The Category:Royal Air Force personnel, would of course embrace Officers, Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Airmen. If that is the intention, then 'personnel' is the terminology that should be used. Kiltpin (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "aircrew" for the same reason as above: not all people serving in the RAF have been awarded the aircrew brevet. I don't think merging with Category:Royal Air Force personnel is the answer; I imagine the idea is to have separate categories for commissioned and non-commissioned personnel in the same way as Category:Royal Navy officers/sailors and Category:British Army officers/soldiers. How about Category:Royal Air Force other ranks? Opera hat (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Royal Air Force aircraftmen and aircraftwomen, since this is what they are called apparently. Having "other" in a category name is not desirable (other than what?). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...aircraftmen and aircraftwomen" would imply a category containing only those who held the lowest rank in the RAF, i.e. not flight sergeants etc. The category should be for all RAF other ranks. Opera hat (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merge to Category:Royal Air Force personnel. Thanks to those who have clarified the purpose of this category. I had thought that it was a role-based category for RAF personnel who flew in planes (rather than groundcrew), but it turns to be a category for a particular rank. (I am not clear whether it is an NCO rank or an equivalent to a Private in the army, but that makes no difference). The title is therefore highly misleading, and while it may be accurate within the terminology of the RAF, its plain English meaning is so radically different from its intent that it is a recipe for miscategorisation.
Rather than try to devise an unambiguous new name, I think that the crucial point here is that it sets out out to categorise people by a particular rank. In other armed services we have single-rank categories only for the very highest ranks (general/admiral/air marshal), and otherwise have a generic category for personnel, with a subcat for officers. I see no need for a catchall category for those below officer rank.
I suggest that RAF personnel should be categorised in the same way as those other services. We already have Category:Royal Air Force officers, so all we need to do with this category is to merge it to Category:Royal Air Force personnel. Many of the pages can then be diffused to Category:Royal Air Force personnel by war, the rest can be diffused to either Category:20th-century Royal Air Force personnel or Category:21st-century Royal Air Force personnel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Although User:BrownHairedGirl sees "no need for a catchall category for those below officer rank", this is the standard categorisation for other services: see Category:Royal Navy sailors, Category:British Army soldiers, Category:Royal Australian Air Force airmen, Category:United States Air Force airmen, etc. Fair enough if the current title for the category is unsatisfactory, but if so it should still be renamed and not merged. The term the RAF itself uses for non-commissioned personnel is "other ranks". Opera hat (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging to Category:Royal Air Force personnel isn't a bad suggestion at all. We do not have to diffuse every category, if there are "other" people who don't fit in more specific categories it is very common to keep them in the top category. I would rather see Category:British Army soldiers as an exception to this general rule merely because it contains a huge amount of subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In practice, the articles I looked at had people who were in the RAF in their youth but were notable for later things. Putting them in a personnel category identifies their background in situations where their rank was less important. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, oppose rename. Agree with Opera hat's reasoning above on why not to merge. Also some RAF airmen are notable in right of their non-commissioned RAF service. For example, those who have been Chief of the Air Staff's Warrant Officers. On the question of terminology, the RAF designates its non-commissioned personnel "airmen" and so I used that term when creating the category. See http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/aboutus/airmenscommandsquadron.cfm for evidence of the "airman / airmen" usage. Were we to need a category for non-commissioned Royal Canadian Air Force personnel then as the RCAF designates its non-commissioned personnel as "non-commissioned members" then I would support a category named as Category:Royal Canadian Air Force non-commissioned members. Although MOS:STRONGNAT is expressly about article nomenclaure, I would suggest that my recommendation is in sympathy with it. Greenshed (talk) 03:56, 13 August 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:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics)

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 on any action at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per definition: "Econometrics is the application of mathematics, statistical methods, and computer science to economic data." fgnievinski (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is slightly different but maybe not different enough for keeping up two different categories. The nominated category is for (mathematical) methods, the target is for (mathematical) applications. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition of Econometrics was wrong (i've fixed it now, as can be seen from the content of the article. Econometrics refers specifically to the application of statistical methods such as regression analysis. It has very little overlap with mathematical economics which is largely based on real analysis and topoloty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
  • Econometrics and mathematical economics exist side by side, I've never seen econometrics being presented as subordinate to mathematical economics (very literally side by side here: [5]). In fact econometrics is much better known than mathematical economics too, as you'll see when trying to find the both terms online.
So while both of these are clearly defined categories that can remain unchanged, mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) isn't as concrete, it doesn't have a main article as an illustration hereof, that's why I agree on a merger, but to a better target (agreeing with John Quiggin in that respect). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, although this may a bit off-topic, I wonder about the four subcategories of curves, data, models and theorems, whether they should be considered as works of economics rather than as methodology of economics (i.e. more as output instead of input). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 8 August 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:Auditor General of Sri Lanka

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: renamed and merged. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first category listed needs to be pluralised; this would regularly be a speedy change but I want to supplement it with the rest of this nomination. The position of Auditor General of Sri Lanka has gone through a number of name changes over the years (see the article). Each subcategory listed includes the individuals who held the position in question when it had one particular name. Although the name changed over time, the position did not really change that much—at least not enough to justify having a different article for the positions. So I do not understand why we cannot just categorize these all in one category, named in a plural form to match the article for the positions, which is Auditor General of Sri Lanka. Several of the subcategories contain just one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 3 August 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:Pashto film 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pashto film stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only 21 articles in permanent category. Only half of these are stubs. Stub category not needed at this time. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Pakistani film stubs. Dawynn (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't generally stub films by language, with the exception of Indian cinema. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note the incorrectly-formed template name too - I'd suggest that should also go, or at least be renamed to just {{Pashto-film-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 12 August 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_August_3&oldid=1074816097"