Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15



Category:Karl Renner Prize recipients

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting karl renner prize recipients


 * Nominator's rationale: That an organisation (e.g. the Vienna Philharmonic) has won this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that organisation. For info: There is a much more comprehensive list of winners at Karl Renner Prize.  This category also (incorrectly) places articles about organisations under Category:People by association. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete not defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another unnecessary award winner's category WP:OC. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Worldwide Universities Network

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting worldwide universities network


 * Nominator's rationale: Which associations a university is a member of is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a university (e.g. in the aricle about Penn State membership of this association is just one of many facts mentioned). For info: There is a list of members at Worldwide Universities Network.  This is part of a series of CFDs for membership of university associations (e.g. see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24). DexDor (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete not defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- we should not categorise them by theri network membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences to Category:Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
 * Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming so it matches the convention at Category:Wikipedia vital articles by topic. Template:Core topics and Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences. However, I note that Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics uses "Natural science" and Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics uses "Life science and medicine" so we maybe should do an RFC or something to build a consensus on the categories before the names are all over the place. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Release_Version also uses "Natural science." At Vital articles/Level/2 it's just under the broad category of "Science" so I have no ideas. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - We use "All" in category names to distinguish from a split category by type/date. For example, we have and its split-list categories such as . Similarly, we have  and (for example) . This category belongs to the specific type, so it should be without the "all". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge but to Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Science. Each of the classifications within Category:Wikipedia vital articles by topic does have an "All" category, User:Od Mishehu, so it is not the "all" that is the problem. "Science" is a valid classification supported according to the documentation of template:vital article, but "Biology and health sciences" is not. This version had multiple invalid categories, fixed by this edit. That parameter change needs to be repeated on the remaining members of the nominated category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Category is now empty – I added articles to what was then a non-existent category by mistake. Cobblet (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Dates in music

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Dates in music to Category:Music by date
 * Nominator's rationale: These two are the same aren't they?. X -robot- X (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge, with additional change Agree with merger. Also, the parent category of Category:Dates in music is better; move Category:Music by date from Category:Categories by time to Category:Dates by topic.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose isolated merge especially as this is in the opposite direction from the Centuries sub-cats, see June 11. See my opposition to the bottom two sections on June 14. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fayenatic. I'm aware of the issues involved in related changes, and it has been problematic. Given the action of the templates, I think we might need to deal with this on a much broader scale. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Tug of war by country

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tug of war by country


 * Propose deleting tug of war in france


 * Propose deleting tug of war competitions by country


 * Propose deleting tug of war competitions in france


 * Nominator's rationale: The whole of this category structure is built around a single article - Tug of war at the 1900 Summer Olympics. This level of detail is neither required nor useful for one article on a minor topic. SFB 14:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tug of war at the Summer Olympics and Template:Olympic Games Tug of War shows that it was an actual sport for five Olympics. There's also 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 that need expanding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On second though, delete. The France situation is because the 1900 Olympics were held there. That is excessive since none of the other Olympic events use the locations that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. An overly complex way of having a set of four categories for one article. The other tug-of-war articles at the Olympics don't have/need this structure and are covered by Category:Tug of war at the Summer Olympics.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unneeded categorization with a single article/subcategory only. NickSt (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Too many cats with no where to go. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Having whole trees of categories for the sake of one article, which is unlikely to have siblings, is a hindrance to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Bonspiels

 * 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 and redirect, given the lack of any clarification whatsoever on the possible distinction. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Bonspiels to Category:Curling competitions
 * Nominator's rationale: Bonspiel is pretty much defined as a "Curling tournament". There doesn't seem to be any more narrow definition than that, so this is serving as a duplicate of Category:Curling competitions. I propose merging to the competitions category as the meaning is much more readily understood than the highly specialist "bonspiel". The previous discussion came out as "keep" on the grounds that bonspiel was the technically correct term, yet there continues to be debate over what exactly constitutes a bonspiel (hence overlap in the categories). Where terms are so obscure that they continue to arouse debate, it makes more sense to use a neutral, plain English title. SFB 12:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. It was my proposition initially. Bonspiel is a type of the curling tournaments, but no categorization by round-robin tournaments in football or by play-off structure in ice hockey. NickSt (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is merged, "Bonspiels" should remain as a categoryredirect -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We've been through this before, and not all that long ago, and the reasons why it's a bad idea haven't changed. The two categories naturally contain different types of events, and the distinction between them is neither ambiguous nor cosmetic. Since category:bonspiels is already a subcat of category:Curling competitions, there's really nothing to be gained from eliminating a productive distinction. VanIsaacWScont 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as the distinction between "curling competitions" and "bonspiels" is unclear and possibly subjective. Definitions are: "A curling match or tournament", "a competition or meet in curling", "a curling tournament". As the world governing body for curling, World Curling Federation, define bonspiels as "A curling competition or tournament", I can't see any value in having two cats which mean the same thing. Any fine distinctions between "curling competition" and "bonspiel" are either subjective or simply too fine to be of value to the Wikipedia user.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nom writes: so this is serving as a duplicate of Category:Curling competitions. Quite indeed. That is the main principle of a subcategory. As are the other subcategories like "Curling at multi-sport events‎" &tc.: curling competitions. Also: all pages in a subcategory must be considerend to be in the parent cat (WP:SUBCAT). Every bonspiel is a curling tournament. All fine.
 * Now approaching from the other side: is every curling tournament a bonspiel? No? Then the subcategory can stay. It does distinguish. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "other side" comment appears flawed when the leading authority on this matter says that a bonspiel is a curling tournament. It would be useful if you could point to sources that indicate that some bonspiels are not curling tournaments or visa versa, as the information we have so far is that bonspiel is simply curling jargon for "A curling competition or tournament". If there is some fine distinction applied when using the term bonspiel this has not yet been explained by those seeking to keep the cat distinct, and certainly no sources have yet been offered. Simply asserting that a bonspiel is sometimes distinct from either a curling competition or tournament is not helpful. Some explanation, preferably with reliable sources, is needed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You write or visa versa. Exactly that is the point (you are getting wrong): in categorising, there is no such symmetry. Rule 1: every page in a subcategory is a full member of the parent. (so: every cat:bonspiel page today already is to be considered a curling competition). Rule 2: if there is a distinction, one can subcategorise. (That is: unless each and every curling tournament is a bonspiel, the subcategory makes sense).
 * iow: so that "leading authority" states that "a bonspiel is a curling tournament". In this I, the authority and the wiki categorising scheme rules agree (each cat:bonspile page is a member of the parent cat:). Further, I do not assume anything. I wrote: 'No? Then ...'. That is not an assumption. That is logic reasoning. It is up to others (like you) to demonstrate that every curling tournament is a bonspiel. When proven, that would show that this subcategory is meaningless. If not proven, the subcategorisation shows a difference. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The cat appears to have been created under what sources now show is a mistaken assumption that "bonspiel" is somehow distinct from "curling competition". That sources indicate that there is no distinction means there is no need for a separate cat. Indeed, having a separate cat misdirects well meaning people like yourself into thinking there is a distinction, and clinging to such a belief even when evidence is presented that there is no distinction. I am faintly amused by your circular thinking, but not so amused that I am continuing with this discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How did I not read you right? You: "as the distinction between "curling competitions" and "bonspiels" is unclear and possibly subjective". And I am the one who wrote: "... is every curling tournament a bonspiel? No? Then ..." (afterwards you call this argument "flawed"). Anyway, after you not having read this, have a nice Olympic bonspiel. -DePiep (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:The Beatles articles undergoing peer review

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:The Beatles articles undergoing peer review to Category:Old requests for The Beatles peer review
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is no longer used, has four members, is not regularly updated, and should be renamed to make it consistent with other items in Category:Old_requests_for_peer_review LT910001 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall creating the category, so can't recapture the rationale. I have no objections to a deletion or a renaming, though it should be Old requests for the Beatles peer review so there is consistency in use of the Beatles across Wikipedia. One question I have though, why do we have Category:Old_requests_for_peer_review? Seems on first glance to be a category of limited value and use.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your assessment. Please drop me a message on talk regarding ideas about what to do, as I've been thinking about that situation for a few days. I discovered it today. In addition to WP:PR we appear to have over one hundred 'peer review' departments created between 2007-2009 attached to Wikiprojects. I think it would be very reasonable to consider centralising some of this effort, as WPs, particularly the peer review pages, appear to be very lonely places.--LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have ideas on what to do as I am not entirely clear on the purpose of the category. I just took a look, and FA have a similar thing, Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, but GA don't; though this template, Template:GAarchive, was created in 2008 and briefly used. I suppose the idea is that someone can easily access past peer reviews if they wanted to research into some aspect of peer reviewing. But I'm not sure how consistently the WikiProject categories are used. I note that Category:Old requests for swimming peer review, Category:Old requests for Ecuador peer review‎, and some others are empty, though they were created six years ago. Perhaps the various WikiProjects could be approached to see if they still feel the cats serve a useful function, or if the date listing categories are enough.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.