Trichome

thcscience_admin
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11[edit]

Category:Jerk (band) albums[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect for a band with one album. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- there was an article until recently with a track list, and it has been redirected unanchored to the band article. I have added an anchor which makes the redirect useful; not sure why the track list was not thought worth copying across. Oculi (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is useful. The category is not. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there isn't any article about an album. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yeah, it's a redirect. That cat lasted over 18 months. (Betcha it'll last another 72 hours.) DMBFFF (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)   (yeah, ≥ 145 hours since being tagged DMBFFF (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Category is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 13:57, 16 April 2020 (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:Pandemics with high degree of misinformation[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. "High degree" is rather subjective. What one person may consider as a high degree of misinformation, another may not. It's not clear how much misinformation there would need to be to warrant a pandemic's inclusion in this category. 1857a (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. buidhe 00:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any events can be subjects of conspiracy theories (which are very controversial). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Both "high degree" and "misinformation" are massively subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Preserve Article Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic highlights the need for category as some governments, experts, and media are culpable for varying degrees of misinformation. The director of the Wikipedia foundation, Katherine Maher, addressed a letter to editors on this very subject. The Wikipedia project WP:COVID-19 was created, partly to deal with the issue, that this category highlights. See articles on the topic:
  • 2020-02-09: On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation by Wired (magazine) (User:Doc James involved)
  • 2020-03-15: People First: Wikimedia’s Response to COVID-19 by Medium (website)|
  • 2020-03-19: The Coronavirus Is Stress-Testing Wikipedia’s Policies by Slate (magazine)|
  • 2020-03-24: Meet the Wikipedia editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate - by Daily Dot|
  • 2020-03-24: Weddings for Wikipedia: Permanent corona virus updates by Heinz Heise|
  • 2020-04-03: Why Wikipedia is winning against the coronavirus 'infodemic' by The Telegraph|
  • 2020-04-04: Meet some of the women sharing reliable COVID-19 information with the world on Wikipedia by Wikimedia|
  • 2020-04-08: Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus by Heinz Heise|

I assert 'high degree' is NOT subjective. It is a matter of public record and Wikipedia community concern. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete @Comingdeer: The problem is not that this is not a concern, but that it's not clear how much misinformation qualifies a pandemic. Also, the only article is already elsewhere in the tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @LaundryPizza03: We do have the categories 'disinformation' and 'misinformation' that overlap as they both could describe the same set of facts. I assert both are present and hence both cats should be used. Cat clutter is the least of our problems as we have a global event that neither governments nor the scientific community has a handle on in terms of understanding causation or best practices. We don't have zero patient nor the immediate host. We already had Reporting bias in the scientific community, and now we have misinformation and/or disinformation. Perhaps we could merge the cats when its all sorted out. Church of the Rain (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we may well have a category about misinformation when there are articles about misinformation, but an article about a pandemic is not an article about misinformation (or at least it is not a defining characteristic of that article). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of categories is navigational primarily and specificity and overlap are normal. I submit that misinformation is a defining characteristic of the pandemic, mainly because the principal scientific questions have not been answered and many governments were dismissive or ill-prepared. Its unclear if international norms were followed by China related to the International Health Regulations. The WHO scientific team tasked to answer scientific questions on the ground, has contributed little to understanding the genesis. See p. 8 on 'Zoonotic origins' and p. 16 on 'Knowledge Gaps' which states: "the key unknowns in a number of areas including the source of infection, pathogenesis and virulence of the virus, transmissibility, risk factors for infection and disease progression, surveillance, diagnostics, clinical management of severe and critically ill patients, and the effectiveness of prevention and control measures". https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf Here I rest my case. Thank you for your attention to this category. Church of the Rain (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Comingdeer (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Delete. This is promotional categorisation. Such arguments should be confined to articles. Not in the least defining as a category, because all pandemics so far have been characterised by misinformation, and they probably always will be. Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2020 (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:Cannington[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring in line with it's parent article, which is Cannington, Western Australia and all other categories in Category:Suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, which all contain Western Australia in it's name. Calistemon (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (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.

Testimonial matches[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, follow-up on this earlier discussion about association football players who received a testimonial. Like with association football players, testimonials are not a defining characteristic in any sport and it is usually mentioned somewhere in the bottom of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2020 (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.

Fictional characters by descent[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/merge (as nominated). — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
more categories to be deleted/merged
Nominator's rationale: delete (or occasionally merge) per WP:NONDEF. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion which concluded in 'no consensus' because only Irish descent was included in that nomination. In this case the entire tree has been nominated. Descent is for fictional characters even less defining than for real people. Descent is hardly ever mentioned in the lede, and sometimes not mentioned in the article at all, for example in Nate Archibald (Gossip Girl) who is supposed to be of English descent. Nor is Irish descent mentioned in Mary Albright. Even in a country like South Africa, which you might expect to be more sensitive to these issues, there is no mention of British descent in Flintheart Glomgold. Also, authors can change the national descent of their characters easily, as we have seen in this recent discussion. Note that this nomination does not include ethnic categories such as Category:Fictional African-American people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All The problem with fictional biographies is that they usually are not defining to the overall character in a book. Authors give a couple pages giving the backstory about major characters and maybe a paragraph on minor ones where they will say what their ethnic background is and usually never comes up again. Other media might have an on-screen introducition or childhood flashback. Many of these articles don't even have that and are placed here with WP:OR based on the ethnicity of the character's last name, like Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz isn't German American. And, when the ethnicity is relevant, it's usually a cliche/stereotype like a disproportionate number in that cat are closet Nazis which is why we have Category:Fictional Nazis since that's what's actually defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All For Now Please don't hate me over this really longer reason. Half of fiction usually identifies the heritages of the characters of any fiction (e.g. Alex Russo from Wizards of Waverly Place is Mexican-American and Apu Nahasapeemapetilon from The Simpsons is an Indian-American immigrant). I do know that Marco Capelle marked all "Fictional characters by descent" categories because of sensitive and possibly controversial issues. Everyone knows that these categories are very controversial per WP:CONTROVERSY. If these categories then we can recategorize the characters as either Canadians, Americans, British or whatever the country or contentment they came from as RD mentioned, Dr. Doodenshmirtz is from a fictional European country of Drusselstein. As such, he is an American person of European descent. On the other hand, the Corleone family are from Sicily, a real Italian region. Not all cliches/stereotypes are present when an ethnicity is present, take a look at Jake Long from American Dragon Jake Long. Jake Long is an Chinese-American but he doesn't shows any stereotypes/cliches other than turning into a Chinese dragon. Yossarian is an Armenian even though the author (who is now deceased in 1999) joked about him being Assyrian (possibly, because there are Assyrians living in Armenia and they are Armenia's third largest ethnic minority after the Yazidis and the Russians). Author can either change the ethnicity of the character or just make it permanent. If deleted (depending on the context), these characters could be recategorized into a more appropriate category (e.g. we could keep Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent because it is an "ethnic" category like African-Americans). As for anthropomorphic characters, he or she must said on where they came from or what ethnicity as animals are everywhere (obviously) or either by the authors who made them (e.g. Donald Duck is a Scottish American because Scrooge McDuck, who is his uncle, is Scottish). Most of you are going to vote for delete for controversial reasons but for me, I had voted for keep because of these reasons depending on the circumstances. I am not sure what Marco means by "Even in a country like South Africa, which you might expect to be more sensitive to these issues." (it could be from personal nor from something else). As BearCar explained in the earlier , Jake Doyle from Republic of Doyle shows his Irishness. In this case, Kai-Lan from Ni-Hao, Kai-Lan strongly shows her Chinese heritage and Yvon Ducharme from Yvon of the Yukon immigrated to Canada from France. What I am not sure is if these categories count as Wikipedia:OVERCAT. If possible, then we can upmerge them. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was totally worried my comment above was way too long, but I think this nomination needs more detailed reasoning than most! If this tree is kept, we're on the same page that it still needs some cleanup, even though we disagree on this nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that this tree is going to be controversial since it talks about ethnicity. Ethnicity is one of the most controversial topics ever (along with religion and politics). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is definitely not about ethnicity, but about genealogy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About genealogy, their surnames indicate what they belong to. Take a look at Irish surnames for example, they have been named after Irish clans. April O'Neil is Irish because of her surname comes from one of the clans of Ireland. Irish surnames have a long history with genealogy due to their association with Irish clans. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)</ref>[reply]
Because the O'Neill surname is Irish, so must be the fictional character? Without an actual source that says so, that's WP:SYNTH on your part, SpinnerLaserz. Right now, not once is a supposed Irish heritage, Irish descent or anything else even remotely related to Ireland mentioned in the article on April O'Neil. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
April O'Neil is instructive. According to the article, "April was really a living drawing brought to life with the help of Kirby's crystal" but there's at least another origin story because she's also under Category:Fictional extraterrestrial–human hybrids. And "the Mirage Studios version of April has dark brown/black hair (though early color reprints of Volume 1 depicted her hair color as red/light brown)" and the picture now looks like a Latina character to me. A real live person with a last name "O'Neill" is probably of Irish descent; a fictional character is anything an author dreams up this morning. It's not about being controversial, but defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they are deleted, how will people found out about how they are. Descent categories are not bad because they define on how they are. You may nor may not studied descents. This CFD will be the last time we discuss them as ethnicity is a controversial topic. Most of these characters have defining ethnicity either by last name nor how they looked (as RevelationDirect explained). This CFD needs more reasonable detailing, its always the same with previous discussions. If this tree were to be kept (as explained), this needs cleanup (which is going to be a difficult and time-wasting task to do). This discussion needs to end as soon as possible as this nom is going to be way more controversial than the categories themselves. What's next for those who supported deletion on this CFD, Category:American clergy of Irish descent or Category:American Jews by occupation? There are going to be huge consequences if they are deleted because they usually fit defining. In a nutshell, I think these categories fit with their parent categories because half of the articles mentioned their genetics. If they are deleted, it going to take many days to recreate them. They are created for a good reason. As mentioned by RD, a person with "O'Neil" is probably of Irish descent. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is TLDR, incomprehensible (e.g. "Most of these characters have defining ethnicity either by last name nor how they looked (as RevelationDirect explained).") and suggests you don't understand wp categorization. "half of the articles mentioned ..." actually emphasises that this isn't an appropriate category for categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did understand how WP categorization works. I am sorry but I had to disagree with you. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with RevelationDirect; categorization based on last name or how they look is simply a matter of WP:OR. In addition, I want to stress again that this is not about ethnicity. For example Category:Fictional Native American people is not part of the nomination. It is about a characters' parents' nationality, or possibly a characters' grandparents' nationality, insofar it deviates from the character's own nationality. Also, descent is hardly ever mentioned as a key characteristic of fictional characters, for many fictional characters we do not even know their parents' or grandparents' nationality, and on top of there are also many fictional characters (and parent and grandparents) with fictional nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can keep some like Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent because there is no category dedicated to characters who are Asian American but we can (if possible) rename them as Asian Americans have their history and influences on American culture. We do know that Marco Capelle have a Master of Science. Science has genetic ancestry testing (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/ancestrytesting). April O'Neil and Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man) can be classified as "American" because they are a resident of NYC (the city where the events of TMNT and Spider Man takes place). But I am not sure if this is going to work or not as we already had a category that states that they lived in NYC. It would be controversial and debatable if a "fictional White Americans" category was created due to its Census definition and its history (you may be aware of the controversy but for those who are not aware, here is the article about White Americans). If a fictional White American category were to be created, it's going to be slapped with a CFD. I don't want to offend anyone here but the term "White American" is very controversial. Speaking of genetic studies, has anyone ever studied genetics? Do you agree that we should keep some categories such as the one I have mentioned (Category:Fictional American people of Asian descent)? They can either be upmerged nor renamed. If you want deletion, then it is best to move these characters to the right categories based on their race. But I will let you guys decide on these categories as this is just my suggestion on these categories. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The characteristics of fictional people are not determined by their genetics; they are determined by the choices of the author (etc) who created them. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD is not about Category:Fictional people by ethnic group and its subcats. DexDor (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We generally categorize fictional things (people, animals, objects, events) under the category for the real things. Maybe we shouldn't (I can see arguments for both) but that's really a separate discussion. DexDor (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might make more sense with a different example: Tony the Tiger is under Category:Fictional tigers which is eventually under Category:Tigers. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all purely subjective; after all, whatever one makes of 'descent' categories in general applying it to fictional characters is even more undefining and purely whatever the author(s) wanted. And after all, Recent African origin of modern humans we are all of African descent, so they tell us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that mean Fred Flintstone is African? He could have went out of Africa into Asia then separated into the Americas, Europe and Oceania. On the other note, we do, however, have Category:Fictional Asian-American people. So if these mentioned categories were deleted, I am going to be in charge of the cleanup. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SpinnerLaserz, what are you talking about? Fred Flintstone is a comedic fictional animated TV character, a blue collar construction worker who lives in a world filled with 1960s technology and dinosaurs. He has no ancestral origin. And you are going to be in charge of the cleanup? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am actually going to be in charge of the cleanup. So, I am going to be prepared for the cleanup when time comes after this CFD ends. So, wish me luck on this.SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinnerLaserz, you have some severe WP:OWNership issue here, which you need to let go off very fast, or you will find yourself at ANI facing sanctions. You are absolutely definitely not going to be in charge of the cleanup; that's the role of the closing admin. It is definitely not a task which the community would entrust to an editor like you who repeatedly makes incoherent contributions to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for all statements I made. I am going to let the closing admin take charge, I am going to cross my statements about this off. Also, I am changing my vote to Delete as I was going to favor for them to keep but I changed my mind about them. Marcocapelle is right about these categories and I agreed with him, I agreed. It's time for these categories to go after 10 or 14 years. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: The example of Tony the Tiger (reply to my comments above) failed to prove relevance. I spent some time examining the cross-categories. With the exception of the use of "tiger" in the infobox I could not cross back to Category:Tiger. "IF" what DexDor stated above is true, "We generally categorize fictional things (people, animals, objects, events) under the category for the real things. Maybe we shouldn't..." ---then--- We DO NOT need the bias of these categories that are subjective, nor do we need to try to cross (or unnecessarily connect) fictional characters or mascots to real-world people or animals, as it serves no purpose. In fact, all articles on fictional people, animals, or mascots should clearly be listed under the main categories "Fictional person... etc". I ran across Segata Sanshiro (a GA article) and the lead states fictional character but it is not clearly included in that category. Why should there be more importance attached to the ethnicity (and what would be the importance) than that a character is fictional (Category:Fictional character). Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note: Per Wikipedia:Categorization (Editing guideline.), specifically WP:CATV: Categorization of articles must be verifiable...must also maintain a neutral point of view. Per WP:CATDEFINING: A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. If a category "clearly" does not fit within this criteria then objections to deleting or up-merging vague, misleading, or unnecessary categories, does not need to be such a battle. All subcategories are subject to the same policies and guidelines as a main or parent category. As per above, there should be no subjectivity, surmising, or original research, because "defining characteristics" are easy to identify and anything else needs proof or shouldn't be created. Otr500 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2020 (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 based in Port Louis, Mauritius[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Port Louis
... or preferably merge to Category:Port Louis per WP:SMALLCAT, since it contains only page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 11 April 2020 (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:Bob Dylan singles not released on LP[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 to Category:Bob Dylan songs. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category
This category groups songs by Bob Dylan that were not initially released on a long play records which doesn't seem defining. We don't typically categorize by what things are not so there is no Category:Singles not released on LP by artist tree. Finally, this category should be empty since all of these songs were eventually released on compilation LP albums later in his career, like Masterpieces (Bob Dylan album). - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge There is no such thing as unreleased LPs (sort of) since these singles could be released on LP comps. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4 of the 5 by my count (one mentions it in the text but not the infobox). The 5th, If You Gotta Go, Go Now, was released in The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966 which, despite the name, was an authorized box set.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2020 (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/2020_April_11

Leave a Reply