October 27
Category:Television stations in Soto la Marina
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category will never have anything other than redirects. Raymie ( t • c) 22:53, 27 October 2016 (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:Types of marketing
- 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 to merge, but do consider a purge of the category. --
Tavix (
talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Types of marketing to Category:Marketing
- Nominator's rationale: This category is mixing up all kinds of different typologies and it therefore doesn't really distinguish itself from its parent category. It's close to a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Inclined to purge rather than merge; it looks as if there is still scope for it to be useful. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Per what criteria would you purge? Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: (see question on previous line). Trying to understand how you envisage the difference between
Category:Types of marketing and
Category:Marketing other than by having "marketing" in the article title.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: although those would certainly remain, the scope of the category is wider than that, e.g.
Pre-installed software and
Project SCUM seem eligible to remain. If the SHAREDNAME argument was binding in these cases, we might have to upmerge all "Category:Types of foo" to parent categories, but it seems to me that they are useful for navigation, which is the prime purpose of categories. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- For further clarification, I wouldn't generally upmerge "Types of", but instead rather prefer to diffuse them, based on different typologies. However in this case it seems like it's a hotchpotch of too many different unrelated typologies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: although those would certainly remain, the scope of the category is wider than that, e.g.
Pre-installed software and
Project SCUM seem eligible to remain. If the SHAREDNAME argument was binding in these cases, we might have to upmerge all "Category:Types of foo" to parent categories, but it seems to me that they are useful for navigation, which is the prime purpose of categories. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 21:34, 1 November 2016 (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.
Guinness World Record setters categories
- 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 all three ( Category:Guinness World Record setters, Category:Female Guinness World Record setters, Category:Male Guinness World Record setters) with selective merge to Category:World record holders or appropriate sub-categories, where being a world record-holder appears to be defining. The participants urging deletion have presented more reasons for this outcome. Guinness World Records appears to be a reliable source, and holding a world record may be a defining characteristic and a ground of notability, but having the record evidenced in that particular publication is not a defining intersection that should be categorised. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Female Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – seems to be defining for Isis the Amazon and some of the others. Oculi ( talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative: merge to Category:Guinness World Record setters, it doesn't seem necessary to split by gender. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a defining category. LM2000 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Guinness World Record setters - I see penty of reason for categorizing into that target, but none for the male/female split. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge does not need splitting by gender. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Marcocapelle Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons I set out below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my arguments below. Which have not even begun to scracth the surface. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the nom below. If that one is kept, then merge this to that. No reason I see for arbitrarily splitting by gender. - jc37 18:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments below. My reasoning for deletion doesn't change because it's limited to females. The problem is with the "guinness world record setters" part of this category, adding "female" doesn't fix it. -- Kbdank71 19:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the existence of Category:Awards for actresses we DO split by gender. It helps, so that we can easily tell the number of articles we have about GW record-setters who are women. I split them knowing that the overall category would eventually grow very large. Ranze ( talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both/Merge if Kept If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. (If kept, women and men aren't competing separately so merge.) RevelationDirect 04:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative merge, per long discussion further below we concluded that while world record may be defining for a biography, "Guinness" certainly isn't defining. So the category shouldn't be merged to Category:Guinness World Record setters but to Category:World record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Male Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – picking Powell Janulus at random it appears to be his only defining characteristic (and obviously defining). Oculi ( talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative: merge to Category:Guinness World Record setters, it doesn't seem necessary to split by gender. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Guinness World Record setters is not a people category, so one would need a different name for a people subcat. (Of course the aged cockatoo might well have a gender.) Oculi ( talk) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Would we really? With record setters, I'd be okay with mixing people (who are the far majority) with a few non-people items. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose defining characteristic. I don't believe the subcat is as populated as it should be, the gender split is necessary. LM2000 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the gender split necessary? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Guinness World Record setters - I see penty of reason for categorizing into that target, but none for the male/female split. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Marcocapelle Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons I set out below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per my arguments below. There is also the fact, is this limited to those who hold records in sex specific competition, or do any males get included, even for records that are not divided by sex? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the nom below. If that one is kept, then merge this to that. No reason I see for arbitrarily splitting by gender. - jc37 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments below. My reasoning for deletion doesn't change because it's limited to males. The problem is with the "guinness world record setters" part of this category, adding "male" doesn't fix it. -- Kbdank71 19:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the existence of equivalent Category:Awards for male actors Ranze ( talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both/Merge if Kept If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. (If kept, women and men aren't competing separately so merge.) RevelationDirect 04:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative merge, per long discussion below we concluded that while world record may be defining for a biography, "Guinness" certainly isn't defining. So the category shouldn't be merged to Category:Guinness World Record setters but to Category:World record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – seems to be defining for Cookie (cockatoo) and some of the others. Oculi ( talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- And, at the same time, support Johnbod's alternative below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose/Keep defining characteristic. LM2000 ( talk) 13:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This looks like it would be likely to be a primary cause of notability for a dignificant part of the potential content, so we should categorize by it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This category has been deleted at least twice before by consensus, here and here. I know that consensus can change, but my comment relates to why it should not in this case. As User:Bearcat wrote in one of the discussions: "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." There is no overall "theme" to those things and people that appear in the book. As it stands, the category is so woefully incomplete – to be complete, a user would need to review every past edition of the book and include every article that is mentioned every edition of the book. It's futile – let others publish their lists and collections and records. Wikipedia does not need to attempt to have categories to correspond with such publications, even if they are "best sellers". ( User:Ranze, the creator of the category, participated in the previous discussion that resulted in the previous deletion of the category, so it's disappointing that he proceeded to re-create the category with apparently full knowledge that it had been deleted by consensus.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Notifying the editors who participated in the previous discussion but have not yet been pinged or participated in this discussion in case they would like to participate here again. @ Cgingold:, @ Johnbod:, @ Wildhartlivie:, @ Lugnuts:, @ Vegaswikian:, @ Mister Alcohol:, @ Kbdank71:, @ Tavix:, @ Nonexyst:, @ Sillyfolkboy:, @ DexDor:, @ Carlossuarez46:, @ Johnpacklambert:, @ Jc37:. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Good Olfactory: which discussion are you referring to? --
Tavix (
talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I pinged you is because you commented in the first of the two discussions I linked to at the beginning of my comment above. Specifically, your (unsigned) comment was made here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Good Olfactory: which discussion are you referring to? --
Tavix (
talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose -Keep, but enforce "defining" strictly (repeating my 2009 thoughts): "I see the difficulty, but for the likes of Charles Osborne (hiccups) it clearly is defining, & his most important category, which per WP:CAT every article should have. So I don't think it can be deleted. But we should enforce "defining" strictly to keep the Guternator et al out, and add a note explaining this. On a very rough estimate this will still leave about 150 article which mention the record claim in the lead." Johnbod ( talk) 02:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete When I first saw this, I had a vague recall it had been deleted before. So delete per previous consensus. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Bearcat, my prior comment, and prior consensus. it's simply not a navigationally useful grouping is true. Every disparate record holder/breaker is listed together regardless of what record it was. It's also just a list of record setters with no other information about what record they broke, when it was, who held it prior, nothing. If you want this, make it a list so you can add this other information and have it be useful. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, and purge of entries in which the record is not defining. I'm convinced by Johnbod's argument. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I remember from the time I looked at the Guiness Book of World Records that it listed the oldest and youngest governor of each US state. That is clearly non-defining to each. A good rule of thumb is if we can find 100 or so cases where the category is non-defining, and we have not even begun to even try to analize the matter, than it clearly is non-defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The lack of any coherence to this category is well taken. Beyond this we have cases like
Kenneth Biros. He is in here because he apparently was the first person executed in the US by single drug lethal injection. At further analysis this is "list of people who did things the Guinesses Book of World Records felt like recording". It is not an award in any meaningful sense. However if it were it would fail. For the majority of people listed in the Guiness Book of World Records this is not a listed trait of them. For those who are known for being exceptionally tall or large, we can create categories for this. I am still trying to figure out how
Justin Bieber gets in here. Also, things get worse than I at first thought. For example, with certain lists, the key will be determining when the Guiness Book did and did not have such a list. Because done properly anyone who was ever listed in the book should keep the category applied to them, even if the specific reason they did so has been superseded. On the other extreme there is
Simeon Stylites who gets mentioned for pole sitting, but unlike some other individuals never thought of getting mention in the book for his 37 years.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Alvin "Shipwreck" Kelly who does seem to have tried to get a record for pole sitting may not earn mention in the Guiness Book of World Records at all, because he never came close to upsetting
Simeon Stylites record. Of course, this begs another question. What if Kelly was put in a Guiness Book at one point by people who were unaware of Simeon's much longer previous record?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The category is incoherent when looking at what kind of records it concerns but the category is coherent when looking at the fact that these people have achieved records. Those are just two different points of view. The category system allows each article to be in multiple categories that each have a different point of view.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: If you peruse one of these books, though, there are such a range of "records" that are included. For instance, this category should include
Mount Everest, because it's in the book as holding the "record" for the highest mountain in the world. This is a "record", even though it's not the type of thing that is going to be "broken" by a different upstart mountain. Similarly,
Barack Obama will be in the category because he holds the "record" as the first African-American U.S. president. So we will potentially have Obama and Mount Everest in a category alongside an article about Joe McHackindish, who set the record for stuffing the most straws into his mouth while squirting milk from his eyelids. (Not to mention all the sportspeople and sports teams who will be in the article for setting various "records" in their sport.) It's so ridiculous as to border on the absurd! (Yeah, we can say we will limit the category to those for whom this characteristic is defining, but I've seen way too many similar cases to know that that's not really going to work, and the issue is going to rise again when an enterprising soul attempts to fully populate the category.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the maintenance problem but at the same time I also see the problem that a number of biographies are in Wikipedia for no other reason than this record.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they should be categorized for something related to the nature of the "record" rather than for the fact that a particular book publicized and wrote about the record. The feature behind the record would still exist if the GBR did not.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- So that would be a split and purge alternative. I like the idea a lot, although I expect that it won't be easy to define "natures" of records.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of a "delete and otherwise categorize the articles". I don't mean splitting them into types of records: just categorize them for being the thing that the record relates to. If it's the highest mountain in the world, categorize it as a mountain. If it's a guy who rode his bike the furthest, categorize him as a cyclist. If it's an old bird, categorize it as an individual bird.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done. At the very least let's try if articles can be dispersed among
Category:World records,
Category:World record holders and the tree of
Category:Sports world record holders.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done." Exactly—which is why a delete is appropriate here. I don't think that most of the articles need to be within the
Category:World record holders tree at all. Guinness (and other similar publishers) makes up "records" all the time for things that are essentially trivial or arbitrary characteristics.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 09:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still, coming back to the original point, if some people derive their notability entirely from the record we should categorize them as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not in this way though. The notability is for the record—ie, the underlying achievement, not because they happened to be written about in a particular record book.
Cookie (cockatoo) is notable for being an old bird. Take away the listing in Guinness, and the bird is still an old bird and still holds an abstract record for being such. Guinness is just a source that establishes the bird's oldness. But we don't need to categorize articles by what particular source establishes their notability.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Then before deleting let's check manually if articles should be added to Category:World records, Category:World record holders or the tree of Category:Sports world record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not in this way though. The notability is for the record—ie, the underlying achievement, not because they happened to be written about in a particular record book.
Cookie (cockatoo) is notable for being an old bird. Take away the listing in Guinness, and the bird is still an old bird and still holds an abstract record for being such. Guinness is just a source that establishes the bird's oldness. But we don't need to categorize articles by what particular source establishes their notability.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still, coming back to the original point, if some people derive their notability entirely from the record we should categorize them as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done." Exactly—which is why a delete is appropriate here. I don't think that most of the articles need to be within the
Category:World record holders tree at all. Guinness (and other similar publishers) makes up "records" all the time for things that are essentially trivial or arbitrary characteristics.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 09:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done. At the very least let's try if articles can be dispersed among
Category:World records,
Category:World record holders and the tree of
Category:Sports world record holders.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of a "delete and otherwise categorize the articles". I don't mean splitting them into types of records: just categorize them for being the thing that the record relates to. If it's the highest mountain in the world, categorize it as a mountain. If it's a guy who rode his bike the furthest, categorize him as a cyclist. If it's an old bird, categorize it as an individual bird.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- So that would be a split and purge alternative. I like the idea a lot, although I expect that it won't be easy to define "natures" of records.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they should be categorized for something related to the nature of the "record" rather than for the fact that a particular book publicized and wrote about the record. The feature behind the record would still exist if the GBR did not.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the maintenance problem but at the same time I also see the problem that a number of biographies are in Wikipedia for no other reason than this record.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: If you peruse one of these books, though, there are such a range of "records" that are included. For instance, this category should include
Mount Everest, because it's in the book as holding the "record" for the highest mountain in the world. This is a "record", even though it's not the type of thing that is going to be "broken" by a different upstart mountain. Similarly,
Barack Obama will be in the category because he holds the "record" as the first African-American U.S. president. So we will potentially have Obama and Mount Everest in a category alongside an article about Joe McHackindish, who set the record for stuffing the most straws into his mouth while squirting milk from his eyelids. (Not to mention all the sportspeople and sports teams who will be in the article for setting various "records" in their sport.) It's so ridiculous as to border on the absurd! (Yeah, we can say we will limit the category to those for whom this characteristic is defining, but I've seen way too many similar cases to know that that's not really going to work, and the issue is going to rise again when an enterprising soul attempts to fully populate the category.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The category is incoherent when looking at what kind of records it concerns but the category is coherent when looking at the fact that these people have achieved records. Those are just two different points of view. The category system allows each article to be in multiple categories that each have a different point of view.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Alvin "Shipwreck" Kelly who does seem to have tried to get a record for pole sitting may not earn mention in the Guiness Book of World Records at all, because he never came close to upsetting
Simeon Stylites record. Of course, this begs another question. What if Kelly was put in a Guiness Book at one point by people who were unaware of Simeon's much longer previous record?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from last time still applies - 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, Wikipedia:NOTSTATSBOOK would appear to significantly apply here. As a matter of fact, per Guinness_World_Records#History, this is by design a book of statistics. - jc37 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this has never been nominated for deletion before in spite of what people said above. There was NOT a previous consensus to delete this. "Winners" was deleted because it was bad vocabular. "Holders" is too small and would require constant maintenance. "Setters" is a much larger category and requires no mainenance, it deserves its own unique consideration. This would not make Wikipedia a stats book because we would not be including every record, just things which are already notable enough to have articles would be kept track of. Sort of like how
Category:Chauffeurs does not include every chauffeur in the world, just consolidates ones who are already notable.
Ranze (
talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dude, no matter how you try to spin it, you have created virtually the same category multiple times. Each time it has been deleted, you've created it under a slightly different name. You've done this without apparently discussing it or proposing it anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. 04:17, 27 November 2016 (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:Labor terminology
- 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. For the record, the category creator's 2008 note on the talk page states that the intention was to include all the entries on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' glossary. [1] However, a consensus has since developed not to use "terminology" categories in that way. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, this is a random collection of articles that have already been categorized more adequately elsewhere in the tree of Category:Labor. None of the articles is specifically about terminology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- cmt saying "None of the articles is specifically about terminology" entirely misses the point of all terminology categories. Each of the articles is a term so the category is a collection of terms ('terminology') for reader navigation purposes. Hmains ( talk) 20:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Numerous terminology categories have been deleted before because they are not about terminology (about language), see for example this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- whether named 'terms' or 'terminology', they are terms collected together into a category for ease of navigation--the purpose of categories. Categories are not 'about' fine points of the English language. Hmains ( talk) 20:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't aid navigation as it's just a random collection of articles from the tree of the parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge back to Labor, but it probably needs purging of items more related to pensions and things like that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm taking this as a support. Please note that the articles are already elsewhere in the tree of Category:Labor as well, so merging back is not needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia has articles about "words" and we use more English words to describe that term through written language. Breaking out some articles as "terminology" when they are all terms, isn't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:19, 27 November 2016 (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.
October 27
Category:Television stations in Soto la Marina
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The category will never have anything other than redirects. Raymie ( t • c) 22:53, 27 October 2016 (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:Types of marketing
- 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 to merge, but do consider a purge of the category. --
Tavix (
talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Types of marketing to Category:Marketing
- Nominator's rationale: This category is mixing up all kinds of different typologies and it therefore doesn't really distinguish itself from its parent category. It's close to a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Inclined to purge rather than merge; it looks as if there is still scope for it to be useful. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Per what criteria would you purge? Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: (see question on previous line). Trying to understand how you envisage the difference between
Category:Types of marketing and
Category:Marketing other than by having "marketing" in the article title.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: although those would certainly remain, the scope of the category is wider than that, e.g.
Pre-installed software and
Project SCUM seem eligible to remain. If the SHAREDNAME argument was binding in these cases, we might have to upmerge all "Category:Types of foo" to parent categories, but it seems to me that they are useful for navigation, which is the prime purpose of categories. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- For further clarification, I wouldn't generally upmerge "Types of", but instead rather prefer to diffuse them, based on different typologies. However in this case it seems like it's a hotchpotch of too many different unrelated typologies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: although those would certainly remain, the scope of the category is wider than that, e.g.
Pre-installed software and
Project SCUM seem eligible to remain. If the SHAREDNAME argument was binding in these cases, we might have to upmerge all "Category:Types of foo" to parent categories, but it seems to me that they are useful for navigation, which is the prime purpose of categories. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 21:34, 1 November 2016 (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.
Guinness World Record setters categories
- 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 all three ( Category:Guinness World Record setters, Category:Female Guinness World Record setters, Category:Male Guinness World Record setters) with selective merge to Category:World record holders or appropriate sub-categories, where being a world record-holder appears to be defining. The participants urging deletion have presented more reasons for this outcome. Guinness World Records appears to be a reliable source, and holding a world record may be a defining characteristic and a ground of notability, but having the record evidenced in that particular publication is not a defining intersection that should be categorised. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Female Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – seems to be defining for Isis the Amazon and some of the others. Oculi ( talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative: merge to Category:Guinness World Record setters, it doesn't seem necessary to split by gender. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a defining category. LM2000 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Guinness World Record setters - I see penty of reason for categorizing into that target, but none for the male/female split. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge does not need splitting by gender. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Marcocapelle Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons I set out below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my arguments below. Which have not even begun to scracth the surface. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the nom below. If that one is kept, then merge this to that. No reason I see for arbitrarily splitting by gender. - jc37 18:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments below. My reasoning for deletion doesn't change because it's limited to females. The problem is with the "guinness world record setters" part of this category, adding "female" doesn't fix it. -- Kbdank71 19:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the existence of Category:Awards for actresses we DO split by gender. It helps, so that we can easily tell the number of articles we have about GW record-setters who are women. I split them knowing that the overall category would eventually grow very large. Ranze ( talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both/Merge if Kept If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. (If kept, women and men aren't competing separately so merge.) RevelationDirect 04:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative merge, per long discussion further below we concluded that while world record may be defining for a biography, "Guinness" certainly isn't defining. So the category shouldn't be merged to Category:Guinness World Record setters but to Category:World record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Male Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – picking Powell Janulus at random it appears to be his only defining characteristic (and obviously defining). Oculi ( talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative: merge to Category:Guinness World Record setters, it doesn't seem necessary to split by gender. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Guinness World Record setters is not a people category, so one would need a different name for a people subcat. (Of course the aged cockatoo might well have a gender.) Oculi ( talk) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Would we really? With record setters, I'd be okay with mixing people (who are the far majority) with a few non-people items. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose defining characteristic. I don't believe the subcat is as populated as it should be, the gender split is necessary. LM2000 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the gender split necessary? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Guinness World Record setters - I see penty of reason for categorizing into that target, but none for the male/female split. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Marcocapelle Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons I set out below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per my arguments below. There is also the fact, is this limited to those who hold records in sex specific competition, or do any males get included, even for records that are not divided by sex? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the nom below. If that one is kept, then merge this to that. No reason I see for arbitrarily splitting by gender. - jc37 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments below. My reasoning for deletion doesn't change because it's limited to males. The problem is with the "guinness world record setters" part of this category, adding "male" doesn't fix it. -- Kbdank71 19:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the existence of equivalent Category:Awards for male actors Ranze ( talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both/Merge if Kept If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. (If kept, women and men aren't competing separately so merge.) RevelationDirect 04:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Alternative merge, per long discussion below we concluded that while world record may be defining for a biography, "Guinness" certainly isn't defining. So the category shouldn't be merged to Category:Guinness World Record setters but to Category:World record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Guinness World Record setters
- Oppose – seems to be defining for Cookie (cockatoo) and some of the others. Oculi ( talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- And, at the same time, support Johnbod's alternative below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose/Keep defining characteristic. LM2000 ( talk) 13:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This looks like it would be likely to be a primary cause of notability for a dignificant part of the potential content, so we should categorize by it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This category has been deleted at least twice before by consensus, here and here. I know that consensus can change, but my comment relates to why it should not in this case. As User:Bearcat wrote in one of the discussions: "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." There is no overall "theme" to those things and people that appear in the book. As it stands, the category is so woefully incomplete – to be complete, a user would need to review every past edition of the book and include every article that is mentioned every edition of the book. It's futile – let others publish their lists and collections and records. Wikipedia does not need to attempt to have categories to correspond with such publications, even if they are "best sellers". ( User:Ranze, the creator of the category, participated in the previous discussion that resulted in the previous deletion of the category, so it's disappointing that he proceeded to re-create the category with apparently full knowledge that it had been deleted by consensus.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Notifying the editors who participated in the previous discussion but have not yet been pinged or participated in this discussion in case they would like to participate here again. @ Cgingold:, @ Johnbod:, @ Wildhartlivie:, @ Lugnuts:, @ Vegaswikian:, @ Mister Alcohol:, @ Kbdank71:, @ Tavix:, @ Nonexyst:, @ Sillyfolkboy:, @ DexDor:, @ Carlossuarez46:, @ Johnpacklambert:, @ Jc37:. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Good Olfactory: which discussion are you referring to? --
Tavix (
talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I pinged you is because you commented in the first of the two discussions I linked to at the beginning of my comment above. Specifically, your (unsigned) comment was made here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Good Olfactory: which discussion are you referring to? --
Tavix (
talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose -Keep, but enforce "defining" strictly (repeating my 2009 thoughts): "I see the difficulty, but for the likes of Charles Osborne (hiccups) it clearly is defining, & his most important category, which per WP:CAT every article should have. So I don't think it can be deleted. But we should enforce "defining" strictly to keep the Guternator et al out, and add a note explaining this. On a very rough estimate this will still leave about 150 article which mention the record claim in the lead." Johnbod ( talk) 02:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete When I first saw this, I had a vague recall it had been deleted before. So delete per previous consensus. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Bearcat, my prior comment, and prior consensus. it's simply not a navigationally useful grouping is true. Every disparate record holder/breaker is listed together regardless of what record it was. It's also just a list of record setters with no other information about what record they broke, when it was, who held it prior, nothing. If you want this, make it a list so you can add this other information and have it be useful. -- Kbdank71 12:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, and purge of entries in which the record is not defining. I'm convinced by Johnbod's argument. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I remember from the time I looked at the Guiness Book of World Records that it listed the oldest and youngest governor of each US state. That is clearly non-defining to each. A good rule of thumb is if we can find 100 or so cases where the category is non-defining, and we have not even begun to even try to analize the matter, than it clearly is non-defining. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The lack of any coherence to this category is well taken. Beyond this we have cases like
Kenneth Biros. He is in here because he apparently was the first person executed in the US by single drug lethal injection. At further analysis this is "list of people who did things the Guinesses Book of World Records felt like recording". It is not an award in any meaningful sense. However if it were it would fail. For the majority of people listed in the Guiness Book of World Records this is not a listed trait of them. For those who are known for being exceptionally tall or large, we can create categories for this. I am still trying to figure out how
Justin Bieber gets in here. Also, things get worse than I at first thought. For example, with certain lists, the key will be determining when the Guiness Book did and did not have such a list. Because done properly anyone who was ever listed in the book should keep the category applied to them, even if the specific reason they did so has been superseded. On the other extreme there is
Simeon Stylites who gets mentioned for pole sitting, but unlike some other individuals never thought of getting mention in the book for his 37 years.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Alvin "Shipwreck" Kelly who does seem to have tried to get a record for pole sitting may not earn mention in the Guiness Book of World Records at all, because he never came close to upsetting
Simeon Stylites record. Of course, this begs another question. What if Kelly was put in a Guiness Book at one point by people who were unaware of Simeon's much longer previous record?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The category is incoherent when looking at what kind of records it concerns but the category is coherent when looking at the fact that these people have achieved records. Those are just two different points of view. The category system allows each article to be in multiple categories that each have a different point of view.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: If you peruse one of these books, though, there are such a range of "records" that are included. For instance, this category should include
Mount Everest, because it's in the book as holding the "record" for the highest mountain in the world. This is a "record", even though it's not the type of thing that is going to be "broken" by a different upstart mountain. Similarly,
Barack Obama will be in the category because he holds the "record" as the first African-American U.S. president. So we will potentially have Obama and Mount Everest in a category alongside an article about Joe McHackindish, who set the record for stuffing the most straws into his mouth while squirting milk from his eyelids. (Not to mention all the sportspeople and sports teams who will be in the article for setting various "records" in their sport.) It's so ridiculous as to border on the absurd! (Yeah, we can say we will limit the category to those for whom this characteristic is defining, but I've seen way too many similar cases to know that that's not really going to work, and the issue is going to rise again when an enterprising soul attempts to fully populate the category.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the maintenance problem but at the same time I also see the problem that a number of biographies are in Wikipedia for no other reason than this record.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they should be categorized for something related to the nature of the "record" rather than for the fact that a particular book publicized and wrote about the record. The feature behind the record would still exist if the GBR did not.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- So that would be a split and purge alternative. I like the idea a lot, although I expect that it won't be easy to define "natures" of records.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of a "delete and otherwise categorize the articles". I don't mean splitting them into types of records: just categorize them for being the thing that the record relates to. If it's the highest mountain in the world, categorize it as a mountain. If it's a guy who rode his bike the furthest, categorize him as a cyclist. If it's an old bird, categorize it as an individual bird.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done. At the very least let's try if articles can be dispersed among
Category:World records,
Category:World record holders and the tree of
Category:Sports world record holders.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done." Exactly—which is why a delete is appropriate here. I don't think that most of the articles need to be within the
Category:World record holders tree at all. Guinness (and other similar publishers) makes up "records" all the time for things that are essentially trivial or arbitrary characteristics.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 09:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still, coming back to the original point, if some people derive their notability entirely from the record we should categorize them as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not in this way though. The notability is for the record—ie, the underlying achievement, not because they happened to be written about in a particular record book.
Cookie (cockatoo) is notable for being an old bird. Take away the listing in Guinness, and the bird is still an old bird and still holds an abstract record for being such. Guinness is just a source that establishes the bird's oldness. But we don't need to categorize articles by what particular source establishes their notability.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Then before deleting let's check manually if articles should be added to Category:World records, Category:World record holders or the tree of Category:Sports world record holders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not in this way though. The notability is for the record—ie, the underlying achievement, not because they happened to be written about in a particular record book.
Cookie (cockatoo) is notable for being an old bird. Take away the listing in Guinness, and the bird is still an old bird and still holds an abstract record for being such. Guinness is just a source that establishes the bird's oldness. But we don't need to categorize articles by what particular source establishes their notability.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 02:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Still, coming back to the original point, if some people derive their notability entirely from the record we should categorize them as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done." Exactly—which is why a delete is appropriate here. I don't think that most of the articles need to be within the
Category:World record holders tree at all. Guinness (and other similar publishers) makes up "records" all the time for things that are essentially trivial or arbitrary characteristics.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 09:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably that kind of categorization has already been done. At the very least let's try if articles can be dispersed among
Category:World records,
Category:World record holders and the tree of
Category:Sports world record holders.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of a "delete and otherwise categorize the articles". I don't mean splitting them into types of records: just categorize them for being the thing that the record relates to. If it's the highest mountain in the world, categorize it as a mountain. If it's a guy who rode his bike the furthest, categorize him as a cyclist. If it's an old bird, categorize it as an individual bird.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- So that would be a split and purge alternative. I like the idea a lot, although I expect that it won't be easy to define "natures" of records.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they should be categorized for something related to the nature of the "record" rather than for the fact that a particular book publicized and wrote about the record. The feature behind the record would still exist if the GBR did not.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the maintenance problem but at the same time I also see the problem that a number of biographies are in Wikipedia for no other reason than this record.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: If you peruse one of these books, though, there are such a range of "records" that are included. For instance, this category should include
Mount Everest, because it's in the book as holding the "record" for the highest mountain in the world. This is a "record", even though it's not the type of thing that is going to be "broken" by a different upstart mountain. Similarly,
Barack Obama will be in the category because he holds the "record" as the first African-American U.S. president. So we will potentially have Obama and Mount Everest in a category alongside an article about Joe McHackindish, who set the record for stuffing the most straws into his mouth while squirting milk from his eyelids. (Not to mention all the sportspeople and sports teams who will be in the article for setting various "records" in their sport.) It's so ridiculous as to border on the absurd! (Yeah, we can say we will limit the category to those for whom this characteristic is defining, but I've seen way too many similar cases to know that that's not really going to work, and the issue is going to rise again when an enterprising soul attempts to fully populate the category.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The category is incoherent when looking at what kind of records it concerns but the category is coherent when looking at the fact that these people have achieved records. Those are just two different points of view. The category system allows each article to be in multiple categories that each have a different point of view.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Alvin "Shipwreck" Kelly who does seem to have tried to get a record for pole sitting may not earn mention in the Guiness Book of World Records at all, because he never came close to upsetting
Simeon Stylites record. Of course, this begs another question. What if Kelly was put in a Guiness Book at one point by people who were unaware of Simeon's much longer previous record?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from last time still applies - 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, Wikipedia:NOTSTATSBOOK would appear to significantly apply here. As a matter of fact, per Guinness_World_Records#History, this is by design a book of statistics. - jc37 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this has never been nominated for deletion before in spite of what people said above. There was NOT a previous consensus to delete this. "Winners" was deleted because it was bad vocabular. "Holders" is too small and would require constant maintenance. "Setters" is a much larger category and requires no mainenance, it deserves its own unique consideration. This would not make Wikipedia a stats book because we would not be including every record, just things which are already notable enough to have articles would be kept track of. Sort of like how
Category:Chauffeurs does not include every chauffeur in the world, just consolidates ones who are already notable.
Ranze (
talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dude, no matter how you try to spin it, you have created virtually the same category multiple times. Each time it has been deleted, you've created it under a slightly different name. You've done this without apparently discussing it or proposing it anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete If this had a bunch of people known for this, that would be one thing. But in the Wikipedia context, this seems to be a tag added to famous people who happen to be in a particular book. 04:17, 27 November 2016 (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:Labor terminology
- 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. For the record, the category creator's 2008 note on the talk page states that the intention was to include all the entries on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' glossary. [1] However, a consensus has since developed not to use "terminology" categories in that way. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, this is a random collection of articles that have already been categorized more adequately elsewhere in the tree of Category:Labor. None of the articles is specifically about terminology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- cmt saying "None of the articles is specifically about terminology" entirely misses the point of all terminology categories. Each of the articles is a term so the category is a collection of terms ('terminology') for reader navigation purposes. Hmains ( talk) 20:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Numerous terminology categories have been deleted before because they are not about terminology (about language), see for example this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- whether named 'terms' or 'terminology', they are terms collected together into a category for ease of navigation--the purpose of categories. Categories are not 'about' fine points of the English language. Hmains ( talk) 20:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't aid navigation as it's just a random collection of articles from the tree of the parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge back to Labor, but it probably needs purging of items more related to pensions and things like that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm taking this as a support. Please note that the articles are already elsewhere in the tree of Category:Labor as well, so merging back is not needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia has articles about "words" and we use more English words to describe that term through written language. Breaking out some articles as "terminology" when they are all terms, isn't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:19, 27 November 2016 (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.