Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25[edit]

Category:Richard McGhee[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:Images of politicians. I've also added it to Category:Images of Irish people. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:EPONCAT & WP:SMALLCAT. Pointless single-item categ for a photo of an MP; only other possible content is the head article Richard McGhee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen image files in content categories before. Is it really inappropriate? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 1 July 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:Famous investors[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) 05:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Famous" is entirely subjective here. Also, an unwieldy volume of "famous" people have investments. What, exactly, makes someone an "investor" for purposes of this category? bd2412 T 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Upmerge which investors are famous is a POV issue, but they are still "investors". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 25 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 Madrid in religious occupations[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:People from Madrid. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a trivial intersection, the religious occupation of the people in this category is not related to their birth in Madrid. Besides we don't have any other cities with this kind of category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, upmerging to Category:People from Madrid makes some sense. Personally I'm not a fan of categorizing people by their place of birth while their notability is not related to that place, but I suppose that's how the game is played with the "people from" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 28 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:Business administration and business economics[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 following rationale at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_20#Category:JEL_classification_system, since this category was explicitly created to fit part of JEL_classification_codes#JEL:_M. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as it does not add anything to existing categories. Article Business administration is about management, and is already in Category:Management. The other articles are about business education, and are already in the tree of Category:Business education. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 25 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:Twenty20 Cup centurions[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 16:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think making a century in a domestic T20 competition is a defining attribute to the individual. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Silly idea. The achievement is not notable enough to rate anything more than a mention in the player's article. Potential size of such a category renders it impractical: imagine a category for first-class match centurions? Jack | talk page 15:00, 25 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:Women's organizations by country[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:
Nominator's rationale: 5 out of 118 subcategories are titled Women's organizations based in foo, the rest are Women's organizations in foo. However using based in would be more line with other organization category trees. (Both versions exist for Egypt). There are also a couple of s/z spelling duplicates here, I would suggest renaming them in line with their parents (Syria and Zambia). Tim! (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly clean up -- S/Z duplicates should be merged to match parents. I would suggest that the "based in foo" cases can be renamed to "in foo". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to use 'based in' per everything in Category:Organizations by country (which was a cfd decision in 2006) and to use s/z in line with their parents. Oculi (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "based in", which makes it more clear it refers to the one location of the head office in case of multinational organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: @Tim!: you have support for your proposal, but it would be out-of-process to implement it without tagging the categories to be renamed. Please do so, and list them. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim! and Fayenatic london: I'm short on time, but I can tag with AWB. Please provide the code you want added at the top of each page. ~ Rob13Talk 21:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Thank you. Could you select the ones with -s- spelling, and add what's currently in User:Fayenatic london/sandbox3, but change "Foo" to the country in each case? Then repeat for -z- spelling. We can fix the Syria & Zambia duplicates at the end.
Alternatively, perhaps use the more compact 
{{subst:cfr|Women's organisations based in Foo|Category:Women's organizations by country}}
(all on the same day GMT, & adapting as above) and we can relist the discussion on the right day. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All relevant categories were tagged. XXN, 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based in, since I agree with Marcocapelle that "in" can sound like their place of operation, i.e. organizations like the YWCA could end up in dozens of these categories. And all of them must follow their national Z/S standard. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 17 July 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:Running Man (TV series) contestants[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 16:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Running Man is a variety show, not a competition series; this category leads to overcategorization of performers by performance. 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 02:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Misleading, at best. bd2412 T 16:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds like a standard WP:OC#PERF Category. We have had some articles on reality TV contestants who are notable for nothing else, so that we have exceptionally to allow those. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 25 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:Moved Abandoned Drafts[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) 05:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No one has been using this category. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Seems a pointless category, with no administrative purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_25&oldid=1138411048"