Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 8 March 2020 (→Category:Vancouver articles: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 29 March 2 >

March 1

Category:Sportspeople from Oroville, California

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found 6 more articles which have been added to the category, so keep. However, the parent category, Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation, has only one sub-category and should be deleted.--TM 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations served by Northern (train operating company)

Nominator's rationale: Northern has lost their franchise and it has been handed over to Northern Trains. Therefore, this category needs to be renamed as Northern no longer has the franchise. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Northern franchise railway stations. This latest change of franchisee is yet another example of the fluid state of the railways of Great Britain. As I noted in my comment of 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail, the name of the franchise is Northern (created 17 October 2004); the franchisee is Arriva; and they trade as Northern. The franchise is stable long-term, but the other two are not constant - the franchisee changed very recently, and the trading name can be whatever the franchisee chooses - so yet again we're recategorising when we shouldn't need to. There is the precedent set at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14#Category:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia (outcome: rename to Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations, noting that there is a desire from an editor that other similar subcats be considered; closing admin: Good Olfactory). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename to Category:Northern franchise railway stations. The franchise is a more permanent characteristic than the operating company. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename and purge (e.g. remove Crewe railway station which has Northern services, but is operated by another TOC) or (preferably) Delete/listify per my comments at the 2014 CFD referred to above. Note: The alt rename is not ideal as some of the articles (e.g. Crewe) don't even use the word "franchise". DexDor (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DexDor: This category group isn't for the operators of the stations, but the operators of the trains that serve the stations; therefore, Crewe may be in more than one of these categories. I don't see why the word "franchise" needs to be mentioned in Crewe railway station at all, it is sufficient for the article text to show that some of the services at Crewe are operated by (insert name here), provided that the name is linked back to another article that gives the details about the franchisee. The Crewe article needn't be explicit that (insert name here) is the current franchisee for the Northern franchise. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended my !vote to delete. Re "it is sufficient for the article text to show that some of the services at Crewe are operated by (insert name here), provided that the name is linked back to another article that gives the details about the franchisee." that's stretching categorization too far. No-one in the real world would seriously describe Crewe as a "Northern franchise railway station"; and that's especially true in a historical context (the article is about the station's 150+ years history, not just about today). We have much better (e.g. more defining, more permanent and clearer) characteristics to categorize stations by (e.g. which county they are in). DexDor (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that Crewe doesn't have services operated as part of the Northern franchise? If so, then who operates the local stopping service between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't say that. Who (currently) operates the local stopping service between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly isn't a defining or permanent characteristic of the station. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that the served-by categories should be deleted. That deletion should not leave any stations uncategorized (as they should be in stations-in-county categories) so that deletion would not be dependent on the creation of any replacement categories.
Whether stations-on-line categories are created is a separate issue; such categorization might not be a good use of editor time as articles about train lines (example) already include diagrams that are a much better means of navigating (between the articles about the stations on a line) than a category would provide. DexDor (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: You make quite a good point. Do you think that perhaps the railway station articles should be categorised by who manages them and then that would avoid overcategorisation to stations which are served by many TOCs (e.g. Liverpool Lime Street railway station or Birmingham New Street railway station etc.). With this plan, Liverpool Lime Street railway station would go to Category:Network Rail managed stations and Category:Railway stations managed by Merseyrail and Birmingham New Street railway station would just go into Category:Network Rail managed stations. This would probably need consensus from WikiProject UK Railways but this is just an idea. Categorising railway stations by the line they are served is probably not a very good idea because Birmingham New Street is on the Cross Country route, Birmingham to Worcester via Bromsgrove Line, Chase Line, Cross-City Line and West Coast Main Line. That wouldn't solve the overcategorisation issue. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization by who manages a station is better (more defining and less transitory) than categorization by who serves a station, but (imo, in the UK at least) it's still not permanent enough to be suitable for categorization; a station may exist for hundreds of years during which the company/ies that manage it may change many times.
A large station that I use has platforms for mainline trains and platforms for local trains. The staff on these platforms wear different uniforms, but as a passenger I've little interest in which company/ies (currently) manages the whole station. That info should be in the text/infobox of an article, but not necessarily a category. DexDor (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that categorisation by who manages the station is less useful than by who serves it. A station is generally managed the TOC that operates the majority of the services but there are a great many exceptions to this for various reasons - indeed there certainly used to be a handful of examples of stations managed by a TOC who did not operate any services there (I can't remember whether there currently are). Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: You are right. There are some stations like South Wigston railway station, Water Orton railway station, Coleshill Parkway railway station etc. that are only served by CrossCountry trains but managed by other TOCs. I was in favour of only moving the category because of the franchise change so I will stick with that. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWOR-TV

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus against categories for individual television stations. The majority of the contents here, further, are people who have worked for the station, which is a clear violation of WP:PERFCAT -- and while there are also a couple of local and/or syndicated shows that aired on the station, we don't categorize syndicated shows by individual station at all -- and once the syndicated shows and the staff are removed, there aren't enough local original productions left to justify a special exception from the longstanding consensus. Furthermore, this has also been tried and deleted in the past, and is thus technically speediable, but since the deletion discussion was 12 years ago I felt it more appropriate to relist for a new discussion rather than speedying. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Storytelling societies

Nominator's rationale: While it's true that some organizations are called "societies", there isn't a meaningful or defining distinction between "societies" and other types of organizations in this context — so the result was that some non-"society" organizations were getting filed here anyway, while others were just being thrown directly into the parent Category:Storytelling instead. There should be just one category for all types of storytelling organizations, not one for the "societies" and none for the other kinds of organizations. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vancouver articles

Nominator's rationale: Internal WikiProject category, which is not named in the standard format for such categories and is simply duplicating the properly named category which already exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MHz Worldview affiliates

Nominator's rationale: MHz Worldview has ceased operations as a broadcast network and is now a streaming-only service. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals cleanup

Nominator's rationale: Clarity that this is a maintenance category. Alternative rename options include Category:Animal articles needing cleanup (like Category:Film articles needing cleanup). Actually, the latter option and recategorization under Category:Wikipedia cleanup by subject may be the better option. DexDor (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metronome Records artists

Nominator's rationale: Category Warner Music Sweden artists already exists. Eurohunter (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean-American biblical scholars

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Korean descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Japanese descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Chinese descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have amalgamated three related items. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American educators of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Chinese descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American educators of Korean descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Korean descent. Small category (2 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume it will grow? The burden is on creators of small categories to prove that it will grow into a category with a sufficient size as to be useful. Either way, it is a triple intersection that is discouraged in policy. Are American educators of Korean descent distinguished enough to have an article written about the topic itself? If so, please provide evidence. If not, it should be deleted.--TM 13:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taiwanese-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Taiwanese descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the category says, these are people of Taiwanese descent. Nothing indicating some vaguely expressed "descent" from Taiwan (or anywhere else) has bearing on a person's diplomacy? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sri Lankan-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Sri Lankan descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Filipino descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cambodian-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Cambodian descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Bangladeshi descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Afghan descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistani-American diplomats

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Asian-American diplomats. Small category (2 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 04:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dancers of Hong Kong descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American jurists of Hong Kong descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American jurists of Vietnamese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Vietnamese descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vietnamese-American theologians

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Vietnamese descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is 5 articles in a category, so a category with only 1 article is usually considered too small to be useful. If you can provide evidence that there are 4 other notable Vietnamese American theologians AND that Vietnamese American theologians constitute such a unique combination that one can write a Wikipedia article on them (like African-American businesses) then I will gladly withdraw the nomination.--TM 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an argument for the existance of Vietnamese American theology? Yes. The currently single Wiki page associated with the category, Peter C. Phan, includes the foremost scholar in the field, who has written specifically on this entitled "The Dragon and the Eagle: Toward a Vietnamese American Theology."
For the general rule of 5 articles, can you point me to where this is specified (I cannot see it in WP:Categorization). This is not an area I am most familiar with, but some (near) notable individuals include Jonathan Tran, Anh Tran, Mai-Anh Le Tran, and possibly Dominic Mai Thanh Lương. We cannot create stub categories. But if you merge this category today, when scholars like the above become more notable, will we then recreate the category that has been removed? --Caorongjin (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that one theologian wrote about diaspora topics does not mean that we should create an entire tree by descent for theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed (and struck). TM posed a false corollary which I was answering: the claim that the existence of a notable “Vietnamese American theology” topic and article should lead to the creation of a “Vietnamese American theologians” category. The category creation should be tied to the existence of figures who can be identified as such identity, irrespective of their theological production. You may have, for instance, non-Vietnamese Americans who are working with Vietnamese Americans and help construct a theology for them that can rightly be called Vietnamese-American theology. —Caorongjin (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dancers of Vietnamese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Vietnamese descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dancers of Taiwanese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Taiwanese descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dancers of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Indian descent. Small category (2 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dancers of Pakistani descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Pakistani descent. Small category (3 articles) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian comedians of Pakistani descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Canadian people of Pakistani descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Category:Canadian people of Pakistani descent. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American comedians of Pakistani descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American comedians. Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Also a triple intersection of nationality, profession, and ancestry that is not independently notable. TM 03:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_1&oldid=944552095"