Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 5



Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Grocer's Encyclopedia

 * 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) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia articles incorporating text from grocer's encyclopedia


 * Nominator's rationale: This category places articles on a range of subjects (e.g. Apple, Potassium bitartrate and Western Orphean warbler) under inappropriate categories such as Category:Books and Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers). This is the sort of anomaly that should be cleared up to make category intersection more workable. For info: this is currently the only category at the depth 5 intersection of Category:Articles and Category:Help. This CFD does not propose to delete the Grocers template so editors can still use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Grocers. If not deleted this category should be moved to a more appropriate location in the category structure. Example of a previous similar CFD: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_3. DexDor(talk) 18:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or turn into a maintenance category - don't we do this for similar groups? Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: DexDor / Johnbod: would you apply this to all the other sub-cats of Category:Wikipedia sources? – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so - don't we already? "This is a maintenance category. It is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories." it says on the head cat. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The subcategories of Wikipedia Sources contain Wikipedia articles (not talk pages) about encyclopedic topics and (currently) place them under Category:Wikipedia administration which (IMO) doesn't make much sense and is the sort of anomaly that I'm trying to remove (to make category intersection more workable). Currently the categories are under Category:Reader help (which isn't correct) and they wouldn't belong under Category:Wikipedia editor help either (that says "should not be used to categorise articles"). Three options: (1) leave unchanged, (2) re-parent these categories (e.g. so they are not under Category:Wikipedia administration etc), (3) delete these categories. Option 3 is the cleanest from a categorization perspective. Another reason for not categorizing articles in this way is that if an article is placed in an "abnormal" category and not placed in any "normal" article categories then it won't be flagged up as an uncategorized page. If these categories were being used in some sort of editor workflow then that could be a good reason to keep them, but afaics (e.g. by looking at what-links-here on a sample of the categories) that isn't the case (i.e. I haven't found any WikiProject instructions that involve these categories). I guess these categories have been created because it's easy to include a bit of code in a template to populate what is in effect a "template tracking category" - regardless of whether the resulting category provides benefits that outweigh its costs. DexDor(talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to better understand what articles cited the Delaware Historical Society so I made sure all the citations linked to the society. See what links there. That seems like a less disruptive approach. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia categories need to aid the development of the encyclopedia and no one is coming forward to explain how these help. I'm up for deleting the source-specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sources. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (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:Kopychyntsi

 * 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. Upmerging isn't applicable because the parent categories are only relevant for the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting kopychyntsi


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. With a population of below 10,000 and having no substantial history except Battle of Kopychyntsi to its credit, it has absolutely less chance of finding a place in multiple articles. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am against. It can possible to create several articles about Kopychyntsi.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What articles did you have in mind?RevelationDirect (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * About churches and people from town. Please, see cat. in Ukrainain wiki. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete  -- Too small to need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- I am asked if I have changed my mind. The answer is "No".  There has to be a limit on how small a place justifies having a category, and I still think this is too small.  I note there are now an article on the place, a church and a battle, together with a subcat for people from it (which should also be upmerged.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2015 (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:Preparation for the future

 * 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. MER-C 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting preparation for the future


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. seems like it is too broad to be a category. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support nomination. Contents of this category has too little in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete Since one cannot have preparation for the past, a proper name would be Category:Preparation, which is even more obviously hopelessly broad. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This just groups together too many totally unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2015 (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:Tseuk Luk Street

 * 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) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Tseuk Luk Street
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION, WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SMALLCAT. Tseuk Luk Street is a road in Hong Kong that looks about 1,400 feet long] and has the main entrance for Ho Lap College. There is no main article and the college article is the 1 item in the category. I don't see how this aids navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified U&cgc as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Hong Kong. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- It will be a very rare street that is notable enough to warrant having a category for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2015 (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:Blind bluesmen

 * 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:Blind musicians after adding to other sub-cats of Category:Blues musicians where not already so categorised. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Blind bluesmen to Category:Blind blues musicians
 * Nominator's rationale: I propose renaming to - Blind blues musicians because:
 * (1) Sexist title.
 * (2) Blind female blues musicians include: Blind Mamie Forehand, Blind "Pearl Necklace" Johnson, Arizona Dranes, and Diane Schuur. Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, August 2015 (UTC)
 * Edited for prettiness. Narky Blert (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt - the category is important and needed, I only question its name. Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to match parent category, Category:Blues musicians. (I originally wondered if the intersection of blind and genre was relevant but Category:Blind musicians is large enough to need diffusion.)RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I agree, matching to parent category looks like a no-brainer. (2) I am a blues fan, and IMO your second thought was correct. Blind musicians exerted a major influence on the development of blues (which is OC my opinion, and OR etc etc). Narky Blert (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete we don't have an article that I can find on this topic, so I first question whether it's notable, and are we going to have every career crossed with every physical characteristic where something could be said in an article? Category:Mad hatters, Category:Suicidal pilots, Category:Substance-abusing doctors, Category:One-armed criminals ad nauseum? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is part of a larger tree: Category:Blind musicians which does have a main article, Blind musicians. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but division to this level appears unwarranted. The existence of Category:Deaf politicians does not imply that Category:Deaf liberal politicians, Category:Deaf communist politicians, or anything along those lines... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Carlossuarez46: in that case, is not a merger needed rather than deletion? – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because such types of categories need header articles, does not mean we have to create them in every case there is a header article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Opposed to Stand-Alone Deletion I'd be strongly opposed to deleting just this genre of blind musicians without also deleting the classical and parent categories. Note that this is my 2nd vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: if this category is going to disappear, it should be upmerged to its parents, rather than plainly deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2015 (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.