Trichome

thcscience_admin
< December 25 December 27 >

December 26[edit]

Category:Women composers[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 all. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Female" is an adjective; "women" is a noun. I'd allow for nonstandard usage if it were the convention, but most categories for women female musicians [22:42 26 Dec] are of the form "female X", such as Category:Female singer-songwriters and Category:Female film score composers. "Women composers" doesn't exactly seem to be a standard phrase either, since we have List of female composers by birth year and List of female composers by name, and Bing gives 29,300,000 results for "female composers" but 5,510,000 results for "women composers". Obviously I would also recommend that the following subcats be renamed in a similar fashion (sorry, don't know how to bundle XFDs):

ekips39 21:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shucks--looks like someone already tried to do this. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered. (And while I'm at it, I think it worth pointing out that the reason I've concerned myself with these categories is that they have no corresponding male equivalents, and I'm confused as to what names to create them under (men composers or male composers?)--since their nonexistence is rather sexist and can't be easily supported by logic. Finally, I suspect this will be yet another WP:BIKESHED debate if it ever gets off the ground...) ekips39 21:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ekips39: There is previous consensus to use the word which is most prominent in the field (e.g. women's basketball players, female singers). I think you've drawn the right conclusions here in that it's not really worth trying for a unified approach when the real world language specifically resists this. When creating new men's categories, male is always the easiest and simplest choice. On the above basis, I would support the move to female composers given more frequent usage. SFB 19:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, however, that Bing and other search engines interpret "female composers" and "women composers" as being the same phrase and give results for both in a search for one or the other (Bing was the only search engine that was willing to show me the numbers), so I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that either phrase is the more common. Also, re "women's basketball players", I think in a lot of cases the phrase "women's X" is used and not "*women X", and thus our use of "women X" is still not the standard form that is actually in use (so using "female X" in these cases wouldn't be that much of a stretch). ekips39 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename given more natural English usage of "female" in this instance. SFB 03:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and yes, Fixer88, this CFD includes all other similarly named subcats of Women composers, so you don't need to add more to here; and I do wish you would create corresponding male categories, because the gender imbalance here is against policy AFAICT and I'm trying hard to fix it. ekips39 22:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If we're going to use "male" then we should use "female". If we want to use "women" then we should use "men". This is not rocket science. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (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:Ohio State Route 4[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. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NON-DEFINING. We do categorize buildings by the roads they are on with Category:Wall Street and Category:Las Vegas Strip when there is a clear cluster of businesses so the location becomes defining. In contrast, this category groups any building along a 200 mile long road when most of those structures predate the actual highway.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio. – RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Placement along the highway is quite relevant for locations along it, and caring whether they predate or postdate the highway is irrelevant. It's helpful for anyone who's trying to discover what articles we have about locations along this highway, and as categories are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, your argument is rubbish. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. wp:CATDEF does explain that defining characteristics are important, i guess pretty much required for categories. Right before that, within the guideline, at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, it is stated that "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." For Firelands Regional Medical Center, in the category, there is no mention of Ohio State Route 4 at all. Being on Ohio State Route 4, assuming it is, does not seem to be a defining characteristic. Not sure about others in the category, that's just one example i checked. --doncram 22:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not need category for state route that has mostly points of interest along the road as opposed to features directly related to the road. Categories should only exist for Interstates and U.S. Routes. Dough4872 01:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being on ohio route 4 is not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2014 (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:Indian Reservation Roads Program[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. This consists of just 1 article that's listed 15 times using redirects. I don't think the individual roads funded under this program are likely to be notable so there is not much room for growth but I did listify them within the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. – RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Editor RevelationDirect's addition of the embedded list into the relevant article, in this edit, seems helpful / courteous. I hope those ones that someone bothered to set up as redirects, are among the more notable roads of the program; that is not sourced. And actually the list now allows for the redirects to be refined to point to that section. Where information about each road could be developed. The redirects seem okay to me, and would be good if they actually helped readers get to some more specific info about the individual roads. I guess the redirects do now provide a reader with the information that the BIA 6 or whatever is a road built under that program, which is something. wp:SMALLCAT doesn't seem that important to me. --doncram 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll point all these redirects to that section of the article I added. I'm not sure the funding mechanism for initial construction is really defining of the roads once they're built since, at that point they usually fall under the BIA's Tribal Transportation Program (TTP). The BIA has lagged other federal agencies for getting information online though so hopefully this topic can be expanded in the future. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not need category for redirects to a list. Dough4872 01:57, 28 December 2014 (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:Ice hockey people from Steinbach, Manitoba[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: double merge as proposed for the ice hockey ones; no consensus for the wrestling one—a separate nomination for it would likely be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also propose merging
Category:Professional wrestlers from Calgary‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Calgary
Category:Ice hockey people from Camrose, Alberta to Category:Sportspeople from Camrose, Alberta
Category: Ice hockey people from Dauphin, Manitoba‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Dauphin, Manitoba
Category:Ice hockey people from Melville, Saskatchewan‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Melville, Saskatchewan
Category:Ice hockey people from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec
Category:Ice hockey people from Thetford Mines to Category:Sportspeople from Thetford Mines
Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFD[1], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. Also propose upmerge to ice hockey people from' the appropriate Canadian province. ...William 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except for the wrestler one. Calgary has very important relevance to professional wrestling through Stampede Wrestling and the trainees of Stu Hart, many of whom helped define what the sport is today. Regarding the ice hockey ones – as I've said previously, if the province ones are too large, subdivision by playing position is more useful than by town. SFB 19:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ice Hockey upmerge to sportspeople categories and to Ice hockey people from <Province>. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus against creating subcategories to funnel sportspeople by the intersection of individual city with individual sport, and we have not established any consensus to treat wrestlers (or Calgary) as a special standalone exception to the broader consensus against this. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearcat: My argument about the wrestling category is that this place is a defining characteristic specifically for the people being categorised – a concept we definitely do have consensus for. SFB 15:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced that it is a defining characteristic, though. The fact that Stampede Wrestling happens to be based in Calgary does not make wrestlers who were born in that city a special class of wrestler, because (a) not all wrestlers associated with Stampede Wrestling are or were from Calgary (I just randomly spotchecked three people in that article's alumni section and not a single one of them was even Canadian, let alone from Calgary in particular), and (b) not all wrestlers from Calgary are or were necessarily associated with Stampede Wrestling rather than other wrestling promotions. Instead of Category:Professional wrestlers from Calgary, what you're proposing would be much better handled by creating a new category for Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni or the like — because that, not being from Calgary per se, is the defining characteristic that you're pointing to. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2015 (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:Road accident victims[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. Articles directly in the top category include people who were injured but not killed in road accidents, e.g. Chinua Achebe and Robert Alner who were partly disabled in accidents. While serious injury is no doubt defining for the individuals concerned, there is no objective threshold for serious injury. In order to have clear criteria for use of these categories, they should therefore be restricted to deaths. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For comparable discussions of victims categories see 2010 May 7#Category:Improvised explosive device victims (deleted, leaving only "Deaths…" category) and 2014 October 3#Category:Genocide victims (renamed as "People who died…"). – Fayenatic London 11:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree that we cannot have a category for every person injured in a road crash, but for some the accident is a life-changing experience. I think the deletion of the IED victims may have been overdone. When I see TV programmes dealing with rehabilitated quadruple amputees from the Afghan war, it is obvious they will not be able to continue their previous military career; at least not in the same way. I would like to see us being able to categorise people who became notable after such a life-changing event. Such notability is likely to be all the more unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Purge I agree with Peterkingiron that non-fatal accidents can be important and should be discussed within the article. From a categorization standpoint, deaths seems to avoid issues with WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I saw this via WP:WikiProject Motorcycling alert. Listing Gary Busey or Arnold Schwarzenegger in a motorcycle accident victim category would serve no purpose. All people listed there now seem to have actually been deaths and it should be so. — Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support many people are survivors of road crashes (even fender-bender) but that doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2014 (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 Will Turpin[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 2 redirects. Not a navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wp:SMALLCAT specifically addresses this case of songs by an artist: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." --doncram 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram:. The nomination is not related to small cat, it's because there is no articles in the category. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Only contains 2 ..." seems to be about wp:SmallCat argument. Fine if you don't mean that. "Only contains... redirects" is not an argument I am familiar with. The 2 redirects are for songs co-written by four persons and appear in four corresponding categories. The Will Turpin songs category may not be very often navigated by readers currently, because the category does not yet appear at the bottom of any song articles, but the category can be reached by readers navigating into the Ed Roland and Joel Kosche song categories, then onto these 2 redirects that are included in those categories. (Yes a reader would have to click twice, being brought to the redirect target then clicking to get back to the redirect itself, where the Turpin category would be available.) I don't see why the category should not continue. It seems to me that User:BizarreLoveTriangle and perhaps others went through some trouble to fully categorize all the Collective Soul songs into Category:Collective Soul songs, Category:Songs written by Dean Roland, Category:Songs written by Ed Roland, Category:Songs written by Joel Kosche, and Category:Songs written by Will Turpin, in part by setting up all the appropriate redirects to be able to do so. Some of the redirects have been turned into articles, since, presumably. So the Ed Roland and Joel Kosche categories have some articles and some redirects, while the Will Turpin and Dean Roland categories have just 2 redirects and 4 redirects so far. It would destroy carefully built, useful structure to delete the Turpin and Dean Roland categories. You might view the 2 categories as more helpful in the future when they directly appear at the bottom of some articles (after song articles are started), sure. But it is a help that the appropriate categories are set out for the song articles to be created with them, and so that there exists complete categories of all of Turpin's and Dean Roland's songs, i.e. existing like lists could exist in articles about each of those persons. (See wp:CLT about useful correspondence of lists and categories.)
Really, once one song article is created that includes Turpin and Dean Roland as writers, you'd want for someone to know to re-create the two categories and also to find their way to 1 and 3 other redirects, respectively, to add the categories to them???? That seems crazy; leave the well-set-up structure in place. --doncram 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this seems to be exactly the SMALLCAT exception, that we should keep "categories [that] are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist", in this case specifically where Category:Collective Soul songs of 99 songs has been sub-categorized sensibly. --doncram 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are not real content worth creating a topic specific navigational construction for. We don't actually have any articles on Turpin's songs so effectively this is an empty category from a topical perspective. SFB 19:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would argue for deleting all the songs having just redirects that are included amidst many songs having articles in, say, the pretty big Category:Songs written by Ed Roland. That's not what the nominator wants. The redirects are useful, IMO, allowing for the Ed Roland category to contain a complete list of the song writer's works. The nominator apparently likes categories that have one or more song articles, but dislikes categories that so far have just redirects. I say it's easier to let the redirects be, and include full classification for each one, into all the appropriate categories for that song, which can be (and was) evaluated one by one, just once for each song. It is a bit crazy to evaluate, and to plan to re-evaluate again and again, each song article and each song redirect in terms of whether any other faraway article has so far been created for one of the song-writers. --doncram 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. My nomination was because the category does not contain **any** song articles. It would be totally misleading to have a category that does not contain at least some of what it says on the tin. Other points raised by Doncram I may/may not agree with but don't consider them relevant this time for this nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating redirects for every song from each of a band's album may be useful for that one person searching for that song, but the categorizing of such redirects is not a navigational aid. What a wasted effort it would be for me to look through a category such as Category:Songs written by Ed Roland to find zero info on about 80% of the songs except for what album they are on. I'm not against the categorizing of redirects but it doesn't help if there is no meaningful content about the subject being redirected in the target article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:45, 30 December 2014 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_26

Leave a Reply