Trichome

thcscience_admin
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20[edit]

Category:Southwestern Mexico[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another deleted spurious Mexico region (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico). It appears that there is no recategorization needed on its subcategories or members. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2017 (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 retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus[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: now completed. This had been listed for manual processing at WP:CFDWM earlier on the day of the nomination. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was established at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 23#Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus that this category should be renamed as Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. However, Cydebot was able to move only the pagenames of individual userpages to the target location, and has left all the subcategories at the source location. The reason for this problem is that all of the subcategories had been set up as hard redirects back to this parent category, in spite of WP:CATRED. This problem needs to be fixed (and it does not seem to satisfy the speedy criteria). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (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:Second Life screenshots[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: administrative close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's an unused category. The template of the same name needs to be looked at too. N. Harmonik (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2017 (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:Southeastern Mexico[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a now deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico) which was part of a spurious system of regional divisions. Another easy one because everything underneath it is adequately categorized now. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2017 (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:North-Central Mexico[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a now deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico) which was part of a spurious system of regional divisions. I'm afraid we're going to have to go at these one by one because some of them are going to require more complicated disposition, but in this case all the children are either states or the plateau article, and are already categorized sufficiently. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't vote, because I'm also involved in cleaning this up, but I want to say there's been a cooperative effort carefully unwrapping this fiction from lists, categories, articles, images. Thank you Mangoe for keeping after it. --Lockley (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2017 (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 from South Derbyshire (district)[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category and its main article use "South Derbyshire" without disambiguation. The only other use of the term is for the parliamentary constituency, and we don't categorise people by those. Jellyman (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2017 (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:Science fiction fans[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: keep, with encouragement to consider forming more specific sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_22#Category:Star_Trek_fans and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Science fiction fandom is not comparable to a TV series, and is notable and defining in its own right. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xezbeth: How does this not fall under WP:OPINIONCAT? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an opinion, it's a defining term. Look at how an article like Lee Hoffman is structured: her being a fan is her most prominent trait, the writing part is secondary. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals")." It may still be a pretty important part of the biography but it's no doubt an opinion or preference. We also don't have Category:Punk rock fans and that could be very defining for that person, certainly but not appropriate for categorization. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep As long as the criteria state in the category description are adhered to (though I think mere attendance at conventions is not notable), I think his category is good, at least insofar as it categorizes those who are only notable for their fannish activity. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified keep per Mangoe. But inclusion should be strictly limited to those for whom it is a defining characteristic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, as I see where the nominator is coming from: try to split this category into subcategories with more clearly defining characteristics, e.g. Category:Organizers of science fiction conventions, Category:Science fiction fanzines writers and the like. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form or another: I think this is an interesting characteristic of people that we want to capture in some way (when citable and appropriate) but as noted above, if we want to drill down in to organizers of conventions, writers of scifi fan fiction, etc., that would be worth discussing. KConWiki (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (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:Historians of Dutch Jewry[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 10:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, too narrow intersection, there is no tree for this (e.g. we don't have Category:Historians of British Jewry). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2017 (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:African-American economists[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. I am going to change the example in the guideline to surgeons, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_25#Category:African-American_surgeons. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion,_sexuality,_or_disability#Special_subcategories explicitly says this shouldn't exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic of African-Americans in economics has been written about in independent sources repeatedly, see [1], [2], [3], [4]. Given the variety of articles on African-Americans in economics, I think the answer to the most important question, "...can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" is yes.--TM 11:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: If the American Economics Association cares enough about this topic to create a special committee to increase the number of African Americans in economics, I think that it is clear that this category needs to exist and the guideline needs to be re-written.--TM 11:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If economics of African-Americans is a notable topic, as some of the economists mentioned in [5] seems to suggest, then an article should be written about it first. We shouldn't create categories on a topic before the article about that topic passes the notability test. And by the way, if it is indeed a notable topic, then we should have a Category:Economists of African-Americans that is open to economists of any ethnicity to write about that topic. Vice versa, not all economists of African-American ethnicity would qualify for the category insofar they are supposedly not all specialized in economics of African-Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I've shared do not indicate that the economics of African-Americans is a notable topic. They indicate that there are a number of independently written articles with depth on the topic of African-American people's participation in the field of economics or often lack thereof. As for the existence of an article on it, your standard is far beyond what Wikipedia requires. To cite the guideline again, the question is whether or not a valid, encyclopedic head article can be written, not whether or not it has been written. The availability of sources of depth on the topic indicates it can and that is why this category meets our guidelines.--TM 10:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's doubtful that a separate article about economists would survive here, as it's unlikely that African-Americans are more underrepresented in economics than they are in a lot of other academic fields. Having said that, to my honest surprise, I can't quickly find a WP article about the position of African-Americans in academics in general, hopefully I haven't searched well enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been trying (slowly) to add Wikipedia articles on the researchers featured at [6], and this category has been useful to me.EAWH (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My guess is that the Association has a committee was because African-Americans were under-represented, rather than because their ethnicity is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What of the other 4 sources I provided that demonstrate that the topic of African-Americans in the field of economics has been written about extensively?--TM 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the sources it is not clear whether this a topic in its own right or a mere 'random' illustration of under-representation of African-Americans in academia. Again, this issue should be elaborated in good articles before starting categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2017 (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:JEL classification system[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 per policy reasons given. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERLAPCAT, a classification system does not define the fields. On the contrary, the classification system has only been developed after the fields had already established. Besides the two categories are copies of each other, and they both overlap with Category:Economics by specialty. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2017 (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:Prints by Rembrandt[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 per Option B. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, extra category layer merely hinders navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that the contents of Category:Etchings by Rembrandt remain categorized. Not all Rembrandt prints are in fact etchings (though they are sometimes loosely so called), so it might be better to move the actual articles up to "Prints by...". Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the articles are about groups, which will include non-etching, in whole or in part. Many of his prints, like The Three Crosses, are mixes of etching and engraving (often drypoint). I haven't looked the other individual prints with articles up (and wouldn't trust our articles on this). The wider point is that the best overall name is "prints", not "etchings", although, as I said above "they are sometimes loosely so called". The List of etchings by Rembrandt falls into this trap. It does not list the techniques, but very many of these are partly in engraving, and quite a few entirely so. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added this as option B and I have tagged Category:Etchings by Rembrandt as well. Either option A or B is okay in terms of avoiding duplication of categories but based on Johnbod's arguments option B is most likely the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B per above. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:35, 20 June 2017 (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:Former accounts of User:PogingJuan[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 11:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an overly specific category pertaining to a single editor, up merge to parent. — xaosflux Talk 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It's possible that this could be a useful administrative scheme as we have with sockpuppets. The problem would just be with filling it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three of the accounts were blocked as inappropriate sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288#Blocked accounts. Those three are improperly tagged as alternate accounts with legitimate use, one was blocked a compromised account, and only one was blocked as a result of the user's request. We have various alternative Wikipedia account templates which suffice, but none of the listed socks even fit the definition of alternative accounts at this point. ℯxplicit 07:25, 20 June 2017 (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:Weekly Idol participants[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 per policy cited. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of performers by performance. This is simply categorizing people who have made guest appearances on Weekly Idol. There is a long-standing precedence against these types of categories: User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Reality TV participants. It is a non-defining and trivial shared characteristic. ℯxplicit 02:54, 20 June 2017 (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:Network protocols[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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per network protocol redirecting to communication protocol. Alternately, make this a subcat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 20 June 2017 (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.

Parodies of Donald Trump[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just like the "Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin" I nominated yesterday we can say the same thing here: we already have a Category:Cultural depictions of Donald Trump, which covers a wider scope of portrayals of Trump than just parodies alone. Also this is more in line with all the other categories which list cultural depictions of celebrities. Shouldn't parody categories be restricted to works? User:Kjell Knudde 13:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Parodies are a legitimate form of cultural expression much different from simply the more general "cultural depictions", which could be graffiti or a campaign hat. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We do not need parody categories for most persons, but here we have someone for whom such parodies really are a distinct, prominent, and potentially defining category, that is useful as a more precise subcategory of the cultural depictions parent category. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2017 (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/2017_June_20

Leave a Reply