Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20[edit]

Category:People from Avalon, New Jersey[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 North Wildwood, merge others to Category:People from Cape May County, New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs)

Also propose merging-

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county communities with 4 or less entries. ...William 16:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge Full diffusion of the county category allows for effective navigation across the category structure, and fulfills the stated purpose of the WP:CLN editing guideline of allowing the category and corresponding list to be built in synergistic fashion. The nominator's cutoff of four is utterly arbitrary and capricious and has no relevance in policy or in making Wikipedia an effective tool for viewing articles through the category structure. Why not two or seven or any other number? What is it about having five entries fulfills a magic number? Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There have at least 100 CFDs similar to this. Go to the editor talk page here[1] and look at entries 118 and higher up to 250 most of which are People from Categories that were nominated for merging and where the consensus has firmly established that small communities with a limited number of notable people entries are merged back into the county categories. Consensus is the answer to why....William
      • Unimpressed. It's arbitrary, capricious and counterproductive, no matter what. Category:People from North Wildwood, New Jersey just grew from four entries to five. Before it had to be deleted now it's fine. What changed? What's the reason for four vs. five? Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't disagree in general. I believe WP:SMALLCAT is flawed because it doesn't give a firm number leaving these endless "cutoff" discussions for the CFD nominations. I see this change as improving navigation though both because the parent category won't be too large to navigate and because the subcats are small (to me). RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge All My apartment building has more residents than Cape May Point, New Jersey. New Jersey has a lot of very small housing developments that are individually incorporated as municipalities and unlikely to form viable categories. No objection to recreating any of these if enough notable people articles appear to give 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom. Although not stated in the guideline, consensus about a cut-off of five articles has grown in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written, however support upmerge to Category:People from Cape May County, New Jersey which I think was what was intended anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cape May County only has around 100,000 residents. This is not really large enough to demonstate a need for further subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge (to Category:People from Cape May County, New Jersey) except Category:People from North Wildwood, New Jersey, which now has 5 members. Categories with 1 or 2 members are useless. kennethaw88 • talk 01:28, 14 August 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:Samyukta Socialist Party[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT. This category contains only one article of highly stub and highly non-notable political party Samyukta Socialist Party. Do we really need category for one article only? Specially when there is already a Category:Samyukta Socialist Party politicians?? As this political party is defunct and non-notable party, so there is no potential of growth in the category. So it suits WP:SMALLCAT. Human3015 knock knock • 16:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article on the party will make a good main article for the politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 20 July 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:Reportedly haunted locations in India[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT. This category is more than a year old and till now contains only one article. Is there need of a special category for just one article? There is already category named Category:Superstition in India exists, I think Category:Superstition in India is enough for sole article in nominated category. There is no potential of growth in this category. So it suits WP:SMALLCAT. Human3015 knock knock • 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete "Reportedly" implies doubt, which makes me feel that this is a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: So how many articles are needed in a category? And why isn't there potential of growth? Have humans stopped being superstitious? And if POVy, the whole parent category of Category:Reportedly haunted locations should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reportedly does not imply doubt, it just implies that the place is thought to be haunted, or reported to be haunted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "reported" by whom? I hereby report that the Taj Mahal is haunted by the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa, now someone please add Taj Mahal to the category... utter nonsense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported by the media. Which constitutes a third party source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole ghost and supernatural phenomenon would be "utter nonsense" to a rationalist. But that's not what we are here on this venue for. You may take that up on Village Pump and get the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and article under it deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except for one site which is unsourced, these articles seem to have reputable-ish sources saying they might be haunted. I have to wonder how much the sources are serious though: are we taking sarcasm or pro-tourism ghost tour articles at face value when we shouldn't? (That concern applies to the whole tree though, not just India.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jamali Kamali Mosque and Tomb is also sourced. I guess you missed it given the decent length of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I missed it but I think the citation is representative. The reliable Hindustan Times has an Entertainment article titled with a question mark "India's Most Haunted?" giving promotional quotes from the creators of a ghost themed reality show filming at the location.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 22 July 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:Australian rules footballers from Perth, Western Australia[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Consensus when creating these categories was for them to be state-by-state, can't see why Perth should be a special exception to this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • inclined to oppose The parent category is quite large, so there is some justification for splitting out a city category, as was done for there other sports for Perth. There are numerous similar categories for Sydney, and categories at various levels for other large Australia cities. Seyasirt (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the parent is already enormous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 20 July 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:Visitor attractions in Marathwada[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 of discussion, since the category no longer exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An WP:OVERCAT. All the articles are/should be covered under the categories of their respective district which fall under Category:Visitor attractions in Maharashtra by district. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marathwada is neither a state nor territory. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above comment. Marathawada is neither a state nor a territory. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like some editor emptied the category out of process and admin RHaworth deleted it already. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I was creator of that category, I emptied that category and requested speedy deletion. It was becoming very annoying from the nominator. --Human3015 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015:, I can see you doing a G7 as the category creator but it's not okay to empty out a category while there is a discussion going on about it. What if an editor came up with a rename suggestion and people supported it or a category merge? We would have to go through your contributions to try to find whatever articles were originally in this category. In the future, please let the proposal close with some determination and then the closing editor can enact whatever they determine the consensus to be.
I do appreciate you coming back and sharing what you did, otherwise, it was a mystery. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, There were some tourist places of Marathwada region in that category. Anyway, it should have been deleted because there was really a issue of WP:OVERCAT with that category. I requested speedy deletion just to close this matter quickly. And thanks for your appreciation, I will surely not request "speedy" for any matter under discussion in future. I would like to thank you for voting for "Keep" here. --Human3015 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 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:American people of Hungarian descent by occupation[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: upmerge and delete as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining, non-notable intersection of occupation and ethnicity, contra WP:OCEGRS and WP:NARROWCAT. The contents of the two subcategories Category:American scientists of Hungarian descent‎ (1 article) and Category:American film directors of Hungarian descent‎ (4 articles), which I'm also nominating, can easily be upmerged to Category:American people of Hungarian descent. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say those higher categories of occupation by origin fail WP:DEFINING, and are game for future discussion. People are commonly labelled as Italian-American, Hungarian-American, etc, and may also be commonly labelled as scientists, film directors, or whatever else their occupation is. But people are rarely if ever described by reliable sources as, say American chemists of Hungarian descent. I think some categories exist simply because some people prefer small categories over large ones. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that scientists of Hungarian descent do science differently than those of Romanian, Bolivian, or any other "descent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the two child categories were not tagged yet, I've done that now. This implies that the discussion has to stay open for at least one more week. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_20&oldid=1086105758"