mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 28 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_28

< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Category:American "faithful slave" monuments and defenders

[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) DannyS712 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how membership of this category can possibly comply with the requirement that categories are defining, neutral and verifiable. It is a completely made up politically loaded category. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was not that there is only one valid member of the category. (There are hundreds if not thousands of single-member categories, by the way.) My point was, if you will agree thie one (Hayward Shepherd monument) is valid, then we can discuss the others. If you maintain that even this one does not meet requirements for this category, we have a different problem. deisenbe (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the alternatives suggested by Marcocapelle could be alternative names if the topic was recognized a a notable topic, i see very little chance that the faithful slave monument concept itself could be such a topic. Note that cramming the category with items that are not monuments such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Gone with the Wind will not help. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2019 (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:Works about technology

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OC. This is lumping together unlike things based on a subjective characterisation. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, BrownHairedGirl. I first encountered this category via The Age of Plastic, a pop album with some recurring themes about modernism and digital technology. That's the sort of thing a reviewer might say about the album, rather than a defining category, so I removed the category tag there. I then looked at the category.
There are only 3 pages directly in this category: Out of Control (Kevin Kelly book) is a pop science book that is primarily about science (biology), but which appears to reference some modern technologies; The Way Things Work is a children's book about technology (in its truer sense about all tools, as opposed to just modern, digital technologies) and how things work; and Technology in science fiction, which is not about a work, but about a theme running through a genre. As per WP:CAT, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". I struggle to see those 3 things (4 with The Age of Plastic) as meaningfully connected where a reader will want to navigate from one to the other.
Most of the category is the various sub-categories. These broadly split into science fiction (from Avatar (2009 film) to Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker) or science/tech. The latter is mostly pop science (e.g. Horizon (UK TV series)), often about the digital revolution (e.g. Race Against the Machine), or just the modern world more generally (e.g. Make Me Smart), with some tech reporting and some actual science (e.g. Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology). Categorisation rules are strict against mixing fictional characters and real people, but we want "Avatar" and "The Way Things Work" together in one category? We want a blog about the modern world in with hard science? It seems to me subjective and overly broad. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how readers would be helped by not grouping those together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 31 March 2019 (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:Kingman Reef

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Main article can be upmerged to Category:United States Minor Outlying Islands but I'm open to suggestions about the subcategory and how it may be recategorized. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 28 March 2019 (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.

Mosques in India by 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: merge all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT, diffusing mosques by district merely leads to dozens of tiny categories, it is makes more sense to categorize mosques at state level rather than at district level. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2019 (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.

Empty subcategories of Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms

[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 consesnsus ... but I will speedy delete all three as empty per WP:C1, without prejudice to re-creation/further CFD discussion if there is something to populate them. But this would all be better dealt with at Template talk:Lang. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The three I originally nominated:
Category:Redirects from Eastern Min-language terms
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Guys, what's going on? This is the third one. 平話平話 → Eastern Min isn't working either. I used cdo.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The language name that ISO 639-3 associates with code cdo is Script error: The function "name_from_code" does not exist.. See here at the ISO 639-3 custodian's website.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from Altai-language terms
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Also not working, as Алтай РеспубликаАлтай Республика → Altai Republic is not being categorized here despite using alt.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The language name that both ISO 639-2 and 639-3 associate with code alt is Southern Altai. See here at the ISO 639-2 custodian's website and here at the ISO 639-3 custodian's website. However, Module:Lang returns Script error: The function "name_from_code" does not exist. (different spelling and geographically ambiguous) from Module:Language/data/wp languages. The data in that module are always suspect because the provenance is unknown so should probably be disabled which would force Module:lang to return Southern Altai.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from Dharug-language terms
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not working. I just created Gula (animal)Gula (animal) → Koala using xdk, but it is not being recognized. It's just showing up as an undetermined language.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The language name that ISO 639-3 associates with code xdk is Script error: The function "name_from_code" does not exist.. See here at the ISO 639-3 custodian's website.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2019 (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 of Merit of the GDR

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V (and probably WP:OCAWARD)
We don't have a main article on the Medal of Merit of the GDR and I'm having trouble confirming the existence of an award by that exact name. The category consists of two articles both on East German female rowers and both articles rely on the same citation for receiving award but that link is behind a paywall. I don't speak German but, depending on how you translate, there are a large numbers of similary sounding East German awards with "merit" in the name according to this informal list so I'm wondering aloud if this is an alternate translation of another award. If I'm having trouble establishing the mere existence of an award it's unlikley to be defining to the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are articles about this award on the German and French Wikipedias; see D:Q2514512. The source does not sit behind a paywall but as per the tag, registration is required. They have set up a very clumsy registration process and without an ability to speak German you’d likely fail to register. Schwede66 10:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that background. Both articles have an offline book citation and a picture of the award, so the award does exist! We're still a long ways off from establishing it's defining-ness though. While I still favor deleting the category, creating an article would be welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if somebody would want to buy the book for me (cheapest on Amazon is Eur 11.50 including postage to New Zealand) I'd happily sit down and write that article. I wouldn't write it without having a book as it's too specialised; you couldn't pull meaningful content together from online sources on something like this. Google Books has snippet view only (which may be different for other editors; I know that often editors in the US have full access when I get snippet view only). According to WorldCat, the nearest physical library copy is in China; some 9,800 km away! Schwede66 23:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get snippet view too (from the U.S.) I was hoping to collaborate here, but I think we've reached the end of the line. Thanks for the great responses! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked that @Schwede66 isn't already on a plane to China to consult that book in the library there. Surely Schwede66 is aware that per WP:CFDLIBRARYTRAVEL, he is obliged to so without delay?
Seriously, tho ... thanks to Schwede66 for the Wikidata links, which brought me to de:Verdienstmedaille der DDR and its translation into French at fr:Médaille du mérite de la RDA. The Google translation of the German article shows me a single-source article which is good on the technicalities, but which doesn't provide any guidance on how many people received the award each year, or on the significance of the award.
However, two factors indicate that it was very unlikely to have been handed out indiscriminately. First, it was presented by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, which places a practical limit on the number of recipients. Secondly, the inclusion of a 1000 mark cash prize indicates that it had limited distribution. The average GDR wage was 1,140 GDR marks in 1985, and giving a month's wages to large numbers of people would get v expensive very fast.
So on that limited evidence, I conclude that award had the same sort of scope as the British award Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), which has a few hundred recipients per year and which we do categorise by. I'm open to new evidence, but what we have so far leads me to disagree with @RevelationDirect: I reckon this is probably WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, WP:CFDLIBRARYTRAVEL! Clicked that link and thought that you were a few days late for April 1. I'll have a bit of time now and see how many awards were given out each year. Schwede66 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done that; please see Category talk:Recipients of the Medal of Merit of the GDR. Looks pretty defining to me! Schwede66 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: You may want to make that a formal "Keep" vote for the closer. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're usually on the same page with award defining-ness so I think this is just a perspective on likelihood based on availabe sources. I see at as possibly defining and would still lean toward delete; since you think it's probably defining, your keep makes sense. The best outcome either way would be for a main article to emerge from Category talk:Recipients of the Medal of Merit of the GDR! RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, yes we usually agree! And I think we are both applying the same principles here. My reading of the limited evidence so far is that there is at least an odds-on possibility this may be a major national award which is WP:DEFINING ... so I oppose deletion unless that possibility is eliminated it at least greatly reduced. In this case, I think there is enough evidence to justify caution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read @Schwede66 excellent's research at Category talk:Recipients of the Medal of Merit of the GDR#What_is_this_award?. The note there that "The newspaper Neues Deutschland published the recipients of all ten different award types that were handed out for the tenth state anniversary, with the Medal of Merit of the GDR being displayed as the leading award type" firms up my keep. Thanks, Schwede66, for that work ... and I hope you enjoyed the trip to China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 4 April 2019 (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:Robot Hall of Fame inductees

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:DEFINING)
The Robot Hall of Fame was an award given out between 2003 and 2012 by the Computer Science department of Carnegie-Mellon University. The category includes both fictional robots (Terminator, C-3PO) and real life ones (Roomba, Lego Mindstorms) and none of those four articles even mention this award. There used to be a display on the award at the Carnegie Science Center's RoboWorld exhibit according to this old link but the current RoboWorld link doesn't mention it anymore. This award doesn't seem defining and the contents of the cateogry are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2019 (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.