Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 1

< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Category:Operation Overlord people

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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT which rarely if ever meets the criteria of WP:DEFCAT. Most of the people in it, ex. Charles Coleman (British Army officer), just happened to be there, but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncertain about what qualifies someone for membership in the category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, this is OVERCAT and non-defining for the vast majority of the thousands of people involved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination as nondefining and overcategorization. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and prune -- Operation Overlord was the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. I am not clear how long after the landings the term continued to be used. At present the category is so overpopulated as to be useless as a navigation tool. I would suggest a split into British, American and Canadian categories. To qualify for inclusion, the bio article needs to mention Operation Overlord or the Normandy landings or the subterfuge operations to make Hitler think the main thrust would be across the Straits to Calais. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize people by war, not by individual campaign in the war. Down the latter road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly OVERCAT. Intothatdarkness 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the policy rationales explained by the nominator and others, the current mass additions to this category, apparently almost all without a citation, by an IP ignoring user talk page warnings by several different editors, clearly demonstrate the practical problems of maintaining such a category in accordance with WP:V. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've seen this added twice in fairly rapid succession by this IP. Intothatdarkness 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Can this be closed by an uninvolved user soon? It's been open for over 2 weeks, and the consensus seems clear to me. The IPs are continuing to add the category to many articles, including ones where it's been deleted multiple times. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in The Witches (novel)

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) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2022 (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:Family saga

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Category:Family saga

Category:Religious fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Category:Religious fiction

Category:Historical fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the parent category for this is Category:Works about history, this has a more ambiguous title, since historical can also mean "old". Worse, this sits atop many child categories that may need to be renamed from 'historical' to 'about history'. Since I don't know the gadget for mass nom, I am starting with this one and hope ore experienced category editors can help, assuming of course there's a general consensus to address this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmmm. I see the idea, but "Historical fiction" is the very well known standard term, used in the industry and by readers, whereas "Fiction about history" isn't. I doubt much confusion is actually likely. Of course most of the fiction is not "about" history, it is about the characters, who are just given a historical setting. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Fair enough. Category:Fiction with a historical setting would be even more clear. Categories should not be ambiguous. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More clear, but less familiar. I think "Historical fiction" is such a well known term that there is no ambiguity, as do others. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I dont see this as an improvement to a very well established term. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (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:Kintetsu

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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split per WP:C2D: Kintetsu Group Holdings and Kintetsu Railway. Most articles are about railways but not all. This was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
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:Wikipedians interested in hit and miss engines

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) 00:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (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:Fictional characters with body dysmorphia

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. bibliomaniac15 20:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge and rename, only keeping characters with a clearly established mental disorder. The question at stake is what the encyclopedic purpose of these categories is and I would answer that question by getting information about how real life disorders are portrayed in fiction. These nominations were opposed at speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussions
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:Faculty by university or college in Finland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland

Category:Doctors of Divinity

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 delete, but prune, removing people with honorary degrees. – Fayenatic London 11:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining per WP:COPDEF and WP:CATDEF. This appears to be the only doctorate or degree category that includes people. We don't have Category:Doctors of Philosophy for every university professor or Category:Doctors of Medicine for every physician with an M.D., nor Category:People with master's degrees, etc. People are notable because of their writings or actions, not because they achieved a higher degree (although the degree may be incidental to someone's notability). --Animalparty! (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being a doctor of divinity is unusual and is clearly a defining characteristic. I would agree that being a doctor of philosophy or medicine is less defining, not sure if those would pass the test. (Animalparty, you might like to read the GNG, notability has nothing to do with writings or actions, it just comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. But that’s another discussion.) Moonraker (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Moonraker: it may be helpful to explain why this is a special case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marcocapelle, I don’t know about a special case, I was just saying that this is clearly defining… “A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)…” That is the case with doctors of divinity. Since the Middle Ages, they have been a small and influential group of people in the world of theology. Moonraker (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further information: Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
@Moonraker: Is a Doctor of Divinity degree widely held to be more prestigious and significant than other higher degrees or honorary degrees, e.g. Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Science or Legum Doctor? The article Doctor of Divinity indicates the degree can be either post PhD level or honorary. Is there something fundamental that unites D.D. holders beyond holding the same piece of paper, and that is distinct from, say Category:Theologians? We probably don't categorize M.D. holders because it would be nearly synonymous and substantially overlapping with Category:Physicians, and don't categorize PhD holders because it could combine physicists, art historians, economists, theologians, etc. that share very little functional similarities worth grouping. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animalparty, I’d say the answer is yes, but all comparative judgements are subjective. Wikipedia:Defining says nothing about prestige or significance. We could find hundreds of categories that have no shred of prestige. It’s just a question of whether the characteristic is defining. We can of course disagree on that, but that is the issue. Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_1