Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 1



Category:Guinness World Records winners

 * 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: Delete4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Guinness World Records winners to Category:Guinness World Record holders
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think it's not correct to apply the term "winner" to any sort of Guinness Record holder. For example, suffering from diseases such as dwarfism or gigantism is not an achievement at all and may be a lifelong woe to these sufferers, even if it makes them listed in the Book, so I propose the usage of more neutral word "holder". --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 22:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support You don't win a record, you break and hold it. SFB 00:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading the old deletion discussion at the proposed name, I propose we re-delete this category. What is the benefit of a navigation tool which takes you from Burj Khalifa to Jennifer Lawrence via Division of Kalgoorlie through Blue Whale. This makes absolutely no sense as a context-less navigational tool because creating a category strips away the very meaning which allowed the world record. Much better as a list, but the sheer number would be daunting (and also present fair use issues). SFB 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as previously discussed and deleted material. The proposed target category was deleted here. (The category creator might have created it under the new name to avoid re-creating a deleted category?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per the previous CFD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support rename. I have a bit of difficulty with the outcome of the previous CfD, as it does not contain an answer to the question how to categorize people who are solely notable for holding a Guinness record. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Category:Professional record breakers would serve that function reasonably well. It limits the scope to people who occupationally carry out such record attempts. SFB 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't really see the purpose of narrowing this down to 'professional'. Also I'm not sure if we should remove Guinness, since that is actually very defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "professional" instantly excludes people who can break records in their occupation (high jumpers for example), yet whose occupation is not strictly "record breaking". SFB 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous CFD. It might be best to check if any of the articles need a new parent category, but those I've just checked (including one which I removed as it didn't mention GWR) had other suitable parents (e.g. a sportsperson category). DexDor (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining per multiple precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Much of this is trivial with no encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only thing these items have in common is that their names have been published in the same book. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Guinness Book of Records contains such wildly divergent things — people notable for doing something, people notable for being something, inanimate objects, places, roads, animals, companies, and on and so forth — that it's simply not a navigationally useful grouping. And since world record holders are frequently supplanted by new holders outdoing them, in many cases it's a point of temporary categorization that isn't adequately maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the Guinness book has far to many odd bits of information for this to make a worthwhile category. If kept, it should be renamed per nom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd bits of information would not show up in this category, only those who are already noteworthy topics. Ranze (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep category and Rename but Oppose proposed rename, instead Rename differently: I can see the problem with "win" being used for potentially harmful non-endeavours (youngest mothers, dwarfism, gigantism) but I have a problem with "hold" because it is too present-specific. It would mandates too much updating, removing the category from people if their record is broken. That is also wrong because even if a record is surpassed, the person still was the first to hold a certain record before it was surpassed. I would propose a bot-rename of all content within to Category:Guinness World Records setters. By using "set" rather than "hold" we include those who set records which are then later surpassed. I oppose deletion, this is a valuable category to keep. It will not be flooded because to be included in this category, the person has to have a page to begin with, and thus be notable. So it's not as if EVERY record-setter will be in the category, only those who are as a whole notable people, which greatly cuts down on the amount that will be in it. If it does become bloated then we can later sub-divide the category based on other criteria, like perhaps on the basis of gender, which would bisect it nicely. Ranze (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Guinness records are very diverse of type, with no overall "theme". As much as I dislike seeing people abuse WP:NOT in xfd discussions, NOTSTATSBOOK would appear to significantly apply here. As a matter of fact, per Guinness_World_Records, this is by design a book of statistics. - jc37 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning here is faulty, we are not reprinting every single stat or record-holder, so we are not operating as a stats-book. We are simply identifying those notable topics (those with articles) who set a record. This is only a small portion of record holders. Guinness lists stuff like who has the fastest play-through of a video game but they would not show up in the category because there is no article about them. Ranze (talk) 03:18, 23 February 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:Garage door openers

 * 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; there is no consensus to delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Garage door openers to Category:Garage door opener manufacturers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the content this is for manufactures. I have no objection to a delete if the discussion moves in that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think two articles warrants its own navigational category. Going back up the tree, certainly something like Category:Automation manufacturers would be more useful, and possibly it could parent the already present Category:Manufacturers of industrial automation. SFB 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per other subcats of Category:Manufacturing companies. - jc37 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Too small a category to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 28 March 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:Airport lounges

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting airport lounges


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. OK, I did remove a type of seat which did not belong leaving this with one entry. So this could be deleted for many reasons, small being one of them.  The better question is should we delete this or populate it?  Most clubs are redirects to a section of the airlines article, like Admirals Club, which I believe is one of the oldest, so there may not be a need to populate. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm torn. There seem to be run by the airlines, not the airports. So they aren't necessarily part of "airport infrastructure". Rename to Category:Airline airport lounges maybe? - jc37 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough articles to justify category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually from what I can tell, there is enough information for this, but in several cases, they have been merged into the owning airlines' article. And while I don't strongly oppose deletion, I do think a rename better serves our readers, as categories are for navigational purposes, and this would definitely help, rather than hinder navigation. - jc37 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Airline airport lounges. The more I look into this, the more it looks like this should be kept. I do think it needs a rename to distinguish between the premium airline lounges and just some "airport waiting area". There is a long history for these, with a history spanning decades. And we do have an article for Airport lounge, and List of airline and airport lounges suggests that this is a category that has immense possibilities for growth. - jc37 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments about potential from Jc37. Added another airport lounge to the category. Disagree with rename as there's no reason why non airline run aiport lounge's should be in a seperate category. Bosstopher (talk) 13:45, 24 April 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:Rotundas

 * 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 to Category:Rotundas (architecture)--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rotundas to Category:Buildings with rotundas (architecture)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rotunda is ambiguous so some change is needed. Since the contents are mostly buildings that have a rotunda, this is clarified in the proposed target name. One could argue that if 'buildings with' is included we don't need the '(architecture)' since the use would be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Alt rename to Category:Rotunda buildings The buildings don't have rotundas, they are rotundas. The nomination is kind of like having "buildings with pyramids". SFB 00:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt rename to Category:Rotundas (architecture) to match the supporting article (though this has no general sources about rotundas so is a bit flaky). Sionk (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Rotundas (architecture) per the article title, and per sources (like britannica) which say the term can mean part of the building or the building itself. - jc37 21:00, 19 February 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:Songs with samples by Stevie Wonder

 * 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) 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs with samples by stevie wonder


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Sampling is a common and fairly standard musical technique now, no more inherently defining than any musical instrument that may or may not have been used in a song's recording. We don't, for example, have Category:Songs featuring guitars etc. There have been previous CfDs all closed as delete, relating to sampling, including, Songs that sample 1980s hit singles, Songs sampling previously recorded songs, Songs sampling Stevie Wonder songs and two others and, at least, 2 more similar catetories. There is also AfD for List of sampled songs which has been deleted. Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Listify This is useful content that readers will want to explore, but a list is much better than a category. The songs themselves don't really need linking together as they often aren't very connected ideas at all. SFB 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, no list. I agree with non-defining, but making it a list seems pretty trivial. I don't think "Songs with Stevie Wonder samples" is a recognized subgenre or discussed as a cohesive or natural set, which fails WP:LISTN, and the list's only purpose would be to scratch the trivia itch of a small group of music fans. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no list. Actually technically speediable, since was one of the categories previously deleted. And much love to nom for quoting my rationale for deletion from that past discussion. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . It was your fine words that crystallized my opinion to a delete. No point reinventing the wheel. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The speedy was declined. There's also Category:Songs which sample or interpolate other songs that should probably go for the same reasons. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 08:50, 4 February 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:American politicians convicted of federal public corruption crimes

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 05:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American politicians convicted of federal public corruption crimes‎ to Category:American politicians convicted of corruption
 * Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as overly specific given level of content. There is some other stuff in this tree like Category:Politicians convicted of illegal gratuities under 18 U.S.C. § 201 that looks insanely specific to me. Certainly I don't think anyone remembers the specific code of corruption that a politician was charged for. This is stuff best left for lists, not categories. what is the relevance of these to the nominations here? SFB 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose these would need a separate CfD, as they concern a different categorization layer than nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are multiple subcategories, and the different charges are different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal is not to get rid of the subcategories! The proposal just says that the subcategories may just as well be parented directly to Category:American politicians convicted of corruption. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge -- the parent has bribery and corruption branches. I am not sure that the difference is in practice that great. I see no reason why the particular offences should not be directly in the parent, which should ideally be a container only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose WP seems to want specific facts regarding criminal convictions; in these case, the specific fact is that the people were convicted of crimes under specific federal law. Grouping them together here is certainly more clear and orderly than just stuffing them into the higher level category. Hmains (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding, a few lines above there was a discussion about a different idea than the nomination refers to. The nomination is not to get rid of the subcategories, the nomination just says that the subcategories may just as well be parented directly to Category:American politicians convicted of corruption instead of to an in-between-layer that has no purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 29 March 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:American politicians convicted of bribery

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American politicians convicted of bribery to Category:American politicians convicted of corruption
 * Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This structure seems to have narrowed down to definitions too quickly. I support a double merge with Category:Politicians convicted of bribery being the target. SFB 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bribery is a specific form of corruption.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw proposal. You're actually right. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the parenting issue I mention above? SFB 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind renaming or merging some of the subcategories to make them less narrow, but I really think they require a different CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as with corruption branch of this tree above. People are convicted of particular statutory offences, not generally of bribery.   Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * keep as is per Marcocapelle, original submitter. Hmains (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per nominator. Jun Nijo (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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:Women bloggers

 * 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) 08:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women bloggers to Category:Bloggers
 * Nominator's rationale: Hasn't the big fuss about, e.g., Category:British women novelists, taught us a lesson about Non-diffusing? (And where are all the Male bloggers? Not at the base of Category:Bloggers, apparently...) Fgnievinski (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Fgnievinski (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a natural sub-cat of Category:Women writers. It is not at all near the non-diffusing problem, since we also sub-divide bloggers by nationality. Now Category:American women bloggers would bring up non-diffusing issues, but that is not what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment reading the article on Stephanie Nielson should show that femaleness and blogging are at times very closely linked. She is described in the opening line as a "Mormon mommy blogger".John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This category is non-diffusing. As long as this category's subjects are also in Category:Bloggers or one of its subcategories, WP:CAT/EGRS is satisfied. Women bloggers are a distinct subset of the blogging community and the subject of research:  gobonobo  + c 17:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, at least need to tag it as non-diffusing, then. Question: how frequent should non-diffusiness be tagged? E.g., I see it in disguise at Category:Women writers but not at all in Category:British women novelists. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, all non-diffusing categories should be marked as such. I don't know if there's a bot that checks whether articles categorized as non-diffusing are ghettoized (or if that's possible), but that could help with implementation. gobonobo  + c 06:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Gobonobo. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the most intriguing quality about (many) bloggers is that you cannot tell their sex by what they write, which is convincing that their sex is not defining of their output or notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While tagging this as non-diffusing might be good, it is not very pressing. Most people get put in nationality+occupation categories. As long as this is a trans-national category, the general trend will be to put the articles in this category and the nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 16 February 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:Artefact (band) albums

 * 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) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting artefact (band) albums


 * Nominator's rationale: The article Artefact (band) has been deleted, along with all of the other articles in this category. MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as empty. SFB 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sppedy delete as empty and useless, now the article has been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 8 February 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.