Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 30

< July 29 July 31 >

July 30

Category:Cima Coppi

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 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cima Coppi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defining characteristic of, for example, Sella Pass or Grossglockner. DexDor (talk) 22:18, 30 July 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:Watch Dogs (series)

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) 06:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Watch Dogs (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category can only contain a maximum of 2 possible pages currently. The1337gamer (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose I think too much time has passed for this nomination to receive enough input. Please repopulate and renominate. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 6 August 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:Souvenir Henri Desgrange

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 09:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Souvenir Henri Desgrange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-defining characteristic of, for example, Great St Bernard Pass and all the other articles that make no mention of Henri. See also discussions such as -this. DexDor (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they should? I created it as there was an equivalent for the Giro d'Italia, Category:Cima Coppi, created by Robertgreer. BaldBoris 22:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's now at CFD above. Have you read any of the guidance pages about wikipedia categorization? DexDor (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Yes I have, but clearly nowhere near as much as you. BaldBoris 22:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT. Having a list is fine but the route of a cycling race isn't defining to the route unless it's purpose built, like a velodrome. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As far as I can tell this is an awards category, which we do not allow. The difference is that it is venues where the award has been won, but we do not allow venue categories either. This is a list of passes climbed in cycling events. If kept, if should be renamed Category:Passes where Souvenir Henri Desgrange has been won or something to that effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 4 August 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:Songs written by Ant Whiting

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/2018 August 22#Category:Songs written by Ant Whiting. ℯxplicit 01:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these three categories are unnecessary - songs written by Ant Whiting, albums produced by Ant Whiting, Song recordings produced by Ant Whiting. this artist is not very notable. does not warrant three categories! does not warrant a single one. one category only has 6 entries, four of which are rizzle kick songs. COI editors have aggressively permeated this artist's name throughout the project as far and wide as possible. time to reign it in. as an example, he has often only contributed to one song as part of a team and it has been added to his album credits (Albums produced by Ant Whiting). these categories were made as part of a vanity exercise and really aren't warranted. I propose all 3 are deleted and am listing them all Rayman60 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: These categories were originally nominated separately with the same rationale. I consolidated the three nominations into a single nomination for ease of discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No valid rationale supplied for deletion. 'I don't like the editors' work' and 'editors shouldn't work on one particular person' are not valid reasons. Each of the categories are part of established category schemes and I can see no valid reason to delete. If the nominator can find one, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion & !vote. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ant Whiting seems a perfectly valid article, and the categories could be OK. However I agree with the nom that Don't Know Why (SoundGirl song) should not be categorised under any of the 7 song-writers mentioned and the production by AW is not supported by the article. I didn't find any articles for which the contribution of AW is defining. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi:. Interesting delete there.
Firstly the songwriters, the number of songwriters relate to the sampling in the song, not the amount of contribution a particular songwriter made. Whiting could have contributed (and owned) 90% of the credits and WP will never know, or maybe we should now delete the McCartney/Lennon cat because they didn't contribute equally to every song?
'Albums produced by' is a mess, because a producer does one track on an album and finishes up in this cat, but that is not something to be debated here.
'Songs produced by' is a reasonable category scheme and I still see no evidence supporting delete.
NB I will check every article and if I do see any that should not be in one of the categories, I will remove, as any editor is entitled to do.
--Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oculi. I have been through the cats and removed one entry, so now we are at the point that in one post you say delete and a second you concede there are other cats with the same 'problems' that you see. Again, I repeat, there is no policy to delete these cats.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a completely fundamental policy to delete some of these, namely WP:Defining. Whereas any Lennon-McCartney song will include the writers in any competent 20-word summary, the 7 or 8 writers of Don't Know Why (SoundGirl song) will be mentioned as an aside if at all (eg in the infobox, unsourced, and not in the article at all). This applies to many other categories of form Category:Songs written by XXX which should never have been created in the first place and which should all be deleted or severely pruned. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oculi. Songwriters are a defining part of a song. You are now trying to limit by number of songwriters, for which there is no policy, or, as far as I am aware, nor any similar restriction regarding cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The not mentioned argument is the same as unreferenced argument, doesn't make the subject less notable. If sources do list 2 or 200 songwriters, it is not WP's job to arbitrarily decide that only a specific number are applicable. That is your argument and there is no WP guidance to support you, every other source disagrees with you. It is not our to opine on how others do something. It is or it isn't, it's as simple as that. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 8 August 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:Islamabad constituency 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: retag and delete. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Islamabad constituency stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only three total articles in permanent category. Propose deleting stub category, and redirecting template to {{Pakistan-constituency-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 15:38, 30 July 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:Humane Societies by country

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/2018 August 22#Category:Humane Societies by country. ℯxplicit 01:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Humane Societies by country to Category:Humane societies by country
Nominator's rationale: "Category:Humane Societies by country" to "Category:Humane societies by country". The word "Societies" should not be capitalized the same as the main article Humane society. IQ125 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Humane societies. I originally moved and closed this as uncontroversial; however, it seems premature to have a by country category when there is not even a top-level Category:Humane societies. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Animal charities, I cannot discern a difference between these concepts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of two differences, though I'm not sure if they are worth separate categories: (1) humane societies can be human-focused and not animal-focused (e.g. Royal Humane Society); and (2) humane societies generally focus narrowly on mitigating cruelty and saving lives, whereas animal charities can have wider goals such as conservation of species. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Black Falcon moved the page already, without closing this discussion. I agree with Carlossuarez on merging, but that would apply to the two subcategories in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it (as WP:CSD#G7) and reopened it after seeing there was no top-level Category:Humane societies. I am not averse to closing this discussion and having a new one for merging if you think that's cleaner. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's cleaner to start a fresh discussion that includes the Canadian and US subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 1 August 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 named Andrew Cohen

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 (G7: author requested deletion). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People named Andrew Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:EPCATPERS. These people just happen to share the same name, and is overcategorization and a bad precdent to set. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category seems to have been created to support a page move: thus. Most ingenious. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated the categories for speedy deletion. Sorry for my ignorance of categorization guideline. Oculi It turns out I didn't even need to create this category to use the Massviews tool. It had an option that accepted wikilinks from the dab page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm pleased that there is an alternative way of using the very useful Massviews tool: thus. Oculi (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging it Coffee. This can be closed now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:16, 30 July 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 use the word dear

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 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use the word dear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This user category groups users on the basis of a trivial characteristic that is unrelated to "facilitating [encyclopedic] coordination and collaboration". While there is broad flexibility about what one can include on one's user page, a user category (a separate page from the user page) should not be created merely to serve as a bottom-of-the-page substitute for user page content. (I am pinging User:Zafar24 as the category's creator and sole member.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Oh dear. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this would be quite a few of us. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the above, and it plainly hasn't caught on, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 30 July 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_July_30&oldid=1073191691"