Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 1

< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

Category:SNEP Top Singles Téléchargés number-one singles

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) 02:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:SNEP Top Singles Téléchargés number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Is reaching number one on France singles chart defining to those songs that reach number one? Maybe. This is not so for any song that reaches number one on the downloads chart of France. This type of chart feat will never get a mention in the lede, much less anywhere in the article of these songs, except maybe in the chart list. We've already got category clutter for songs that reach number one in multiple countries, now download charts too? What next, Streaming charts? These are not defining aspects of these songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Agree, it's unclear slicing and dicing into a myriad ways of promoting a "top" song is Wikipedia's interest. -- GreenC 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, shouldn't it be upmerged to Category:Number-one singles in France? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorizing a song as a number-one single in France because it reached number one on a chart that will not in any way be or become a defining aspect of that song is superfluous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:44, 7 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:Audio book narrators

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single word "audiobook" per general consensus name of Category:Audiobooks and Audiobooks, and Audiobook#Etymology. GreenC 18:32, 1 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:Companies listed on the Islamabad Stock Exchange

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 as empty: Category:Companies listed on the Islamabad Stock Exchange, Category:Islamabad Stock Exchange, Category:Companies listed on the Lahore Stock Exchange, Category:Lahore Stock Exchange;
merge Category:Karachi Stock Exchange to Category:Stock exchanges in Pakistan;
merge Category:Companies listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Companies listed on the Islamabad Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Islamabad Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Companies listed on the Lahore Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Lahore Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Companies listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Karachi Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These stock exchanges were merged in 2016 to form PSX so they serve no purpose now. It is better we dump them and move them to PSX category. Störm (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the PSX was only created in 2016 following the merger. Before that, they were all separate stock exchanges. So for historical purposes, it would be better to keep all categories (or at least the "Companies listed on XX" cats) as defunt stock exchange cats, and especially rename the latter to Category:Companies formerly listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange etc. following the example of other similar categories. Mar4d (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Companies listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange and Category:Stock exchanges in Pakistan respectively. The formerly listed companies categories serve for individual companies withdrawn from a stock exchange, not for an entire stock exchange to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 1 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:People by nationality and status

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. To summarize: "status" may not be the optimal term, but that should be discussed at the level of Category:People by status; nationality is a standard method of subdividing biographical categories—if this should be an exception, that warrants its own nomination of the by-nationality subcats; continent is a relatively common method of subdividing categories—if it is not warranted here, that should be discussed separately; and, lastly, setting up a new category tree of people by nationality or migration status may be worth further discussion, but is outside the scope of this nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing. The term Status is too ambiguous to be the root of a categorisation system Not a well established category tree. Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the by-nationality and continent subcats of Category:People by status, and a containers for >18 subcategories. What on earth is the point of deleting this while keeping parent and children? If the whole tree was deleted, what alternative groupings does the nom propose to replace Category:People by status?
I hope the nominator will withdraw this very ill-considered nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only just realised it exists. There are 18 country/status categories which I will nominate too if this proposal is supported, but most of them are very sparsely populated. I think there could be useful categories - immigration status, health status. Some of the sub cats of Category:People by status look useful. I'd welcome discussion. If we really think this is a helpful category tree then I am happy to populate it but I think it needs a clearer structure. Category:People by country and status could helpfully be renamed people by immigration status, for example. Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that's daft. It's putting the cart before the horse.
If and when the by-nationality subcats are removed, then these container categs can be speedy-deleted as empty. But so long as the by-nationality subcats remain, what on earth is the point of deleting this while keeping parent and children? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Category:People by status exists so 'by status' is already the root of a categorisation system (unaffected by the present nom). Oculi (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain deletion is of course not an option, but two of these categories, Category:People by continent and status and Category:People by country and status, may be upmerged by lack of sufficient content. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping to generate some discussion about the fundamental concept. Do I have to nominate all the superior and inferior categories in order to do that? Its the concept "status" that I have a problem with. Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly under status we have a very broad collection of subcategories, and 'status' may not be the best descriptor. Still, plain deletion is not an option here, because e.g. at the top level that would remove the subcats of Category:People by status from the tree of Category:People which obviously can't be the intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People by status seems to me to work better. It's when its linked to nationality that I have a problem. Nationality and status are linked together, and a category which was about nationality status - ie immigration and citizenship - might work. But the status categories are a hodge podge of stuff which don't easily fit into the other categories at this level. I'd be happier if we could devise a scheme where the notion of status was divided. Age, criminalty, citizenship, bodily integrity, family circumstances might all be possible. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments by User:BrownHairedGirl. Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its ambiguous. People have a nationality status. Illegal immigrant, naturalised, deported, citizens .... Category:People by continent and status seems to be about that sort of status, but I cant seem any reason for sorting people by continent. Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories by continent aren't easily populated, I remember that some editors mentioned they feel that subcategorization by nationality or country should be sufficient. In fact, none of the categories in Category:People by status has a subcategory by continent, except for the Refugees that is already in Category:People by continent and status. So for that reason it would not harm to delete Category:People by continent and status, just by lack of further content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to think what meanings will be attributed to categories who are not as obsessive as we are about them, otherwise they will be filled up with inappropriate content. The combination of the terms nationality and status is very significant for a lot of people, and the term status without qualification is unhelpfully ambiguous. I'm happy to withdraw the idea of deleting these categories, but I think we need to find better words to define them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rathfelder, if you are withdrawing the deletion proposal, I suggest closing this discussion. You could then start a new discussion at WT:CAT about what else to call them. If that discussion produces one or more workable alternatives, then you can return to CfD with a nomination which would rename Category:People by status and all the by-nationality subcats of Category:People by country and status. This nom includes none of them, so it couldn't possibly lead to any action ... which means there is no point keeping it open.
Would it be OK with you for me to close this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that's fine by me. Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont find many of the categories by continent helpful. It's hard to see who would use them. And there are plenty of places which are not obviously in a continent so its not very helpful for sorting out country categories. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder, continents are a way to group country categories. There are dozens of people-by-attibute-by-continent categories.
I cannot think of country which is not in a continent. What places do you have in mind? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyprus, St Helena, Greenland, Indonesia, Cuba, Israel. See Category:Law enforcement agencies of Trinidad and Tobago When there are only 6 continents it seems a bit foolish to have a load of countries in two of them. Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not complicated. Cyprus is in Europe, Greenland is in North America/Europe, Indonesia in Asia, Cuba in North America, Israel in Asia. There are only about ~220 "countries", so a few minutes study will resolve any outliers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole notion that the various things covered in these categories can be summarized as "status" is just not normal language usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: Did you actually read any of the discussion above?
      All that deletion will achieve will be to remove the link between Category:People by status and the 18 by-nationality subcategories of Category:People by nationality and status. How on earth does that help anything? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • JPL's reaction confirms what I wrote earlier ("Admittedly under status we have a very broad collection of subcategories, and 'status' may not be the best descriptor") but that issue should be solved by a rename, if there is a better name, or else an upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, maybe a rename, maybe an upmerge. But I'd probably oppose an upmerge; it wouldn't help to dump all these topics in their parent cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still not convinced that these topics are in any way a cohesive sub-set of Category:People. We mix immigration, being alive, being slaves, ownership cats, and some others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to set up a category of people by nationality status - that is about citizenship and immigration. Would that be helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder: It might be part of a solution.
      But see my suggestion above about a discussion somewhere on the options. Chucking that proposal in at the tail end of an out-of-time botched deletion proposal is no way to establish consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry. I got a bit lost in the discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Migration status and nationality status are two quite distinct concepts. Rathfelder (talk) 08:09, 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:Bangladeshi bureaucrats

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: selectively merge to Category:Bangladeshi civil servants. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Bangladeshi bureaucrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The vagueness of the term "bureaucrat" is illustrated by the category's contents: Obaidul Karim is a businessman, but Jahangir Kabir is a civil servant and A. H. M. Moniruzzaman is a career diplomat.
That's why we have no wider Category:Bureaucrats: it has too many meanings.
Most of the article here belong in the parent Category:Bangladeshi civil servants, but merger should be done manually to cope iwth exceptions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 1 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:Busan International Comedy Festival

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) 15:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Busan International Comedy Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only article in the category is the key article, and there's no sign there'll be any growth any time soon. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- GreenC 20:06, 3 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 Wayne Anderson

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) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Picture books by Wayne Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Illustrator Wayne Anderson is not notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia, so why is there a category of books he worked on? Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support per nom. Looks like a vestigial relic. -- GreenC 20:08, 3 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:Belgian politicians of World War II

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 subcat is adequately parented on its own. (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Belgian politicians of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: not part of any established series (there is no Category:Politicians of World War II).
The one item in the category is already adequately parented, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The one child in the governments-in-exile tree makes much more sense there. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- GreenC 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a category that is destined to be orphaned. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and only one item. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- While Belgium was occupied there were no politicians, so that there is no scope for expansion or siblings. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 6 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:Recipients of the Medal "In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow"

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Medal "In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining category for a jubilee medal. Fails WP:CATDEF as none of the recipients are notable for having received this award. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as description of the medal makes clear that it confers no notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable; covers a commemorative, militaria award. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --clearly a NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_1&oldid=871693216"