Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8

Category:American reggaeton artists

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. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American reggaeton artists to Category:American reggaeton musicians

Nominator's rationale: The superior category is Category:Reggaeton musicians. There are 6 categories of reggaeton artists which can be speedily renamed if this is agreed. I dont think we should use the term "artists" when we are talking about musicians. Its a source of confusion. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support (C2C), per the entire tree of Category:Musicians by genre. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 15 October 2021 (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:Lists of people sharing a surname

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 all. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: "Sharing" implies there is a stronger connection than actually exists. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the nominator's point. There are a number of common surnames for which the surname can have multiple unrelated origins, so "sharing" is too close of a term. BD2412 T 22:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I created the 'people sharing a surname' category in 2008. I think the nominator's argument for renaming is a good one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Lists of people by surname. Oppose the other two; they should be titled along the pattern of Category:Title and name disambiguation pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:力: what do you mean, please, as to how the empress categories should be named? – Fayenatic London 23:13, 5 November 2021 (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:Multiple choice

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Multiple choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete as a trivial characteristic. Nowadays almost every exam or test is at least partly on multiple choice basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Nowadays almost every exam or test is at least partly on multiple choice basis": is there a source for this? AFAIK, for instance, projective tests, and French high school and university examinations, are almost never multiple choices, and cognitive tests are often not multiple choices either. Anyway, WP should not address only current topics. Apokrif (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a WP:SMALLCAT without potential. Move the article Multiple choice into Category:Cognitive tests initially – other categories can be added to it later. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "without potential": this is very disputable. " Move the article Multiple choice into Category:Cognitive tests": many multiple choices are not cognitive tests. Apokrif (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 6 articles is not small and the nomination claims that there is almost unlimited potential. Possibly rename to Category:Multiple choice school examinations per parent Category:School examinations. (Most school exams in the UK are not multiple choice.) Oculi (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the huge potential. The Multiple choice article contains a list of just over 30 items to begin with, which I consider a very low number. I guess the list is relatively short, and sources are limited, exactly because it is a too trivial characteristic. But I accept that my guess is not convincing so I withdraw the nomination as it stands. Creating Category:Multiple choice school examinations as a subcategory is an interesting idea to move forward though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Possibly rename to Category:Multiple choice school examinations ": many multiple choice tests are not school examinations. Apokrif (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The category was created as a subcategory of Category:School examinations, a set category, and thus all its contents should have been 'school examinations', which was not the case on 8 Oct 2021. The actual category (judging from its contents) looks like a topic category based on Multiple choice and Marcocapelle has accordingly reparented it (yesterday) to reflect this (a downside being to undermine my remarks above). Under the category tree of today I would recommend a new subcategory Category:Multiple choice examinations, also a subcat of Category:Examinations. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: anyway you can go ahead populating the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: many more multiple choice tests (potentially hundreds of them) may be found in the tree of Category:Standardized tests. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough examples of non multiple choice tests. --Just N. (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these should be merged to "Standardized Test" categories or "Psychological Test" categories if they aren't already there. The category is radically incomplete and shouldn't be completed, as it is generally not a defining property. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No argument for keeping seems to actually refute the nominator's rationale, which is that the category is trivial (and size is irrelevant). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my comment above? Apokrif (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . There are huge numbers of assessment tools, of many kinds and many use Multiple choice, but this is not a defining characteristic. Rathfelder (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Clinical Knowledge 2 article says that that exam assesses knowledge through "a traditional, multiple-choice examination", which suggests to me that this is not defining even where it is specified in the article. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 5 November 2021 (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:Contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary

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: convert to list, then delete. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary to article List of contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary

Nominator's rationale: non-defining characteristic; it's not even mentioned in most of the articles members of this cat. fgnievinski (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom. Best solution as WP:NONDEF certainly applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- This seems a good solution. It will be highly defining for a few people, but in many cases not defining at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2021 (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:2018 Swedish general election

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) 05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:2018 Swedish general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one page, the page on the election itself. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could have Results of the 2018 Swedish general election added to it, but still to small to be worthwhile IMO. Number 5 7 08:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SMALLCAT applies.No Great Shaker (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category now has six articles so I've changed my vote. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Now contains four articles and a template. Still pretty small, but potentially saveable. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Did the situation meanwhile change to a sufficient extent? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep For it's no longer SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2021 (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:Ethiopian lyricists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ethiopian songwriters. Consensus is that as named there is little potential for growth, and the name is not accurate as the one entry is a songwriter rather than just a lyricist. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ethiopian lyricists to Category:Ethiopian songwriters

Nominator's rationale: The only article clearly writes the music as well as the lyrics. Rathfelder (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mulugeta Abate is a member of Category:Ethiopian composers which is sufficient. Also, WP:SMALLCAT must apply unless there is a good chance of expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMALLCAT unless there is ascertained potential added. --Just N. (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, do not delete, there is no reason to not have the biography in the songwriters tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2021 (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.