Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 31 November 2 >

November 1

[edit]

Category:Winners of All-Ireland medals by count (hurling)

[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 to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship winners, and merge all proposed. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 05:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The frequency of the medal is mostly not a more defining element than having won a medal in general - more often than not, it is the team the athlete played for when winning the medal that is far more definitive and could improve navigation. I suggest we rename the parent and merge all to a general medalists category, as per usual style. Note that contextualised information about number of medals won/with what team/when is already present at List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medal winners (and even List of hurlers with an All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship runners-up medal!) SFB 23:20, 1 November 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:Universiade competitors 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: delete. No enthusiasm and no strong argument for keeping Category:Universiade competitors has been evident, so I'm not going to merge to it. If it's non-defining to have been a Universiade competitor for a particular country, it's most likely non-defining to have been a Universiade competitor at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
propose deleting all country child categories
Nominator's rationale: Building on the failed nomination in July:

The act of competing for a given country at the Universiade is not defining aspect for an athlete. This competition is not a top level one for any sport, in that only students may take part. Participation in this competition is not sufficiently defining of a person that they warrant direct navigation to their countryfolk who have also appeared at the event. Appearances are almost always a small part of a professional athlete's career and being selected for the Universiade is neither a story of note, nor an overall career objective for any sportsperson.

I believe the tree under Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country should be used for open-class global or continental Games only. To have two categories (year of appearance and country) for each and every competition that an athlete has taken part in is excessive. One could say the current arrangement without expanding it further is already excessive, for example see Michael Frater. SFB 16:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as being non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are your proposing to upmerge everything to Category:Universiade competitors ? Instead of a country's competitors, it would just be a competitor having competed. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My nomination is on the basis that having competed at the competition is not defining, so this logically includes that category too. I'll add it to the nomination seeing as I don't think it changes the substance of the arguments so far presented. SFB 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, scratch that, as I see Peter mentions other possibilities. On that basis, if others suggest an upmerge to the non-country parent is preferable then I think that's a better outcome than failing the country nomination on this other issue of competing overall. I've removed the parent category from nomination. SFB 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in principle (perhaps upmerge)-- I suspect that this is about what used to be called the World Student Games. Since the competitors are students, they are presumably not professional athletes. In that case we should not have a category for them. However there may be some who go on to become professional athletes: having previously competed at this event. One category for the competitors at each holding of the event, plus appearing in a national sport category should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 8 November 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:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, twelve times

[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 08:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SMALLCAT
These aren't different degrees or levels of the award, these are people who received the same award twice or a dozen times. In the Soviet Union, the Order of Lenin was the highest decoration awarded except for 1944-1957 but, since this award is no longer issued, none of these categories have any room for growth.. I'm sympathetic that the parent category is large enough to need diffusion, but this breakdown isn't defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a single category could become unwieldy, as others have, what "diffusion" criteria would you support? Ones that occur to me are: occupation (eg, political & Politburo, military, science, etc), nationality (eg, foreign & the various Soviet nationalities), time periods (eg, by date, conflict, etc). I still contend that the higher frequencies reflect those who are in political favour, therefore of interest and distinctive. I'll see how the discussion developes before deciding my view. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern about diffusion, although these subcategoriess are only diffusing a small percentage anyway. The obvious breakdown would be by SSR but I suspect a large majority would by Russian. If it is clear that awards were granted on non-subjective categories (military, science) etc that would work too and I'm inferring from the articles that this is the case but not all of them explicitly say why the award was given. Determining why the award was given in the 1944-1957 time frame is important because this award award served double duty during that time to recognize 25 years of military service which isn't defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 3 November 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:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING
During the 24 years that the Soviet Union issued this award, 106,462 were handed out per the article so over 4,000 per year. Recent nominations have implied that there may be a consensus that top-level national awards are defining but this is only a second-level award--the highest being the Order of Lenin. Most telling though is the actual articles: most either don't mention the award at all or only include it in a list of other awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: The Purple Heart nomination was grouped with another award and ended in no consensus back in 2012. I was thinking of giving it another go. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't take away from the fact that the award currently under consideration is for merit, not being unlucky. How many Bronze Stars have been awarded by the USA? They're often handed out like sweets. How many long-serving American combat veterans haven't got one? Yet we have Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal. I'd like to see you try to get that deleted! There would be outrage. That's what I mean about systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: 17,498 Bronze Stars were issued as of 2004 and it started in 1944, so about 292 a year. So the Bronze Star is about 20 times rarer (per year issued) than this award. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:45, 5 November 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.

Establishments in New Sweden

[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/delete as in modified nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
propose deleting all container categories that become empty after the above merge
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 5 establishment articles in this entire tree easily fit in a single category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 1 November 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.

Disestablishments in New Sweden

[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per the spirit of WP:C1, the only disestablishment article in this New Sweden tree is the disestablishment of New Sweden itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 1 November 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.
[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. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Public domain" is misleading. In fact, we should respect local laws that certain images may apply. For instance, the United Kingdom can consider less original logos copyrightable enough, like the logo of Edge (magazine). We can't consider them free just because the US says so in regards to non-US works. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31 Songs is definitely non-free in the US. As for Anglia, it's not eligible for copyright in the US; it has blue and yellow triangles and a common quadrilateral forming a letter "A". Look at examples in commons:COM:TOO#United States. I'll find copyright laws of Ghana soon; no comment on AWA. --George Ho (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we can have little confidence in the legal analysis of users who upload, reviewers who review, and administrators who speedily or decline to speedily delete alleged copyright infringements, the whole category is misleading. If we cannot do it properly, we should just say so and not try to say otherwise and make a mess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Carlossuarez46. I especially note that every example I've seen so far relies on the assessment that the image is too simple to copyright, which is especially questionable. Perhaps half of what I've seen are trademarked and therefore not really free anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful tracking category for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Without this category, it would be more difficult to find files with that copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: Rename the category or retain the current name? George Ho (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever, as long as the category isn't deleted. These days, most categories tend to use the word 'file' instead of 'image', so it might be useful to change that word in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no opinion on rename This category is useful to distinguish between files by their copyright status. This is a job that needs to be done (for WP:NFC/WP:NFCC policy enforcement and also to help using the free material) regardless of whether this category exists or not, and there will always be some amount of miscategoized/misclassified files. Worth noting also that trademarks and foreign copyrights (unlike say on Commons) are not pertinent to free/non-free status, as noted on Wikipedia:Copyrights.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:41, 15 December 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_November_1&oldid=1074815449"