Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:Muslim warriors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Again, I see no reason to split warriors by what religion they happened to follow. Ensure proper categorization in other places of the contents, and then delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subdivision by religion is a bad idea here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might be open to some grouping involving the Muslim conquests but this is way to broad to be defining.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all religion/job intersections are non-defining and really unmaintainable. Do Muslim warriors make war differently than Christian ones? Atheist ones? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a hotchpotch of people from different periods who share a religion. I agree that a caregory based on Muslim conquests might be valid, but we would need to start again for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, Merge with military personnel (see next nom below), so that it gets split with that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2013 (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:Muslim generals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, religious-based categories should not be created unless you can demonstrate a close linkage to the topic: "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. " Being a general or someone in the military, and being of the Muslim faith, is not defining. To break up this category, we will need help from experts in military history of Islamic states, so as to sub-categorize these generals into the appropriate existing or new categories by country or century of Category:Generals. but as it is currently defined, one could put every Pakistani and Egyptian and Libyan and Moroccan and so on in these categories - and I'm not aware of any difference in the way a Muslim Indian General discharges their duty as opposed to a Hindu or Sikh general. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should split generals by nationality, not by religion. If a general in the US or India is Muslim, this will not be a defining part of their being a general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might be open to some grouping involving the Muslim conquests but this is way to broad to be defining.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all religion/job intersections are non-defining and really unmaintainable. Do Muslim generals command differently than Christian ones? Atheist ones? etc... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split both -- Both these are also hotch potches. They need a lot of tidying up, partly by purging and partly by splitting. In some cases religion is only incidental, e.g. American Muslims (purge completely). In others it is largely a consequence of nationality (e.g. Pakistan - where the Christians and Hindus have little chance of promotion to that level. Muslim generals might be useful as a container category for the Abbasid, Fatimid, Pakistani and other categories, possibly renamed to Category:Generals in Muslim states. After the split (if agreed), we may need to see what we have got left. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fair to ask the closing Admin to undertake the split. Do we have a volunteer to implement a consensus? Not me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2013 (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:African people of Arab descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There were two main issues at stakes here, and there appears to be no consensus on either of them:
  1. Whether it is appropriate to include all people with ancestry from from modern Arab-majority countries in categories for people of Arab descent
  2. Whether any people should be categorised as being of Arab descent
Two editors also objected to categorising anyone by ethnic descent. However, Category:People by ethnic or national descent includes a huge number of ethnic categories, so that is a broader issue beyond the scope of this discussion.
Editors may wish to open one or more RFCs to seek a broader community consensus on these issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arab is problematic here as it is almost always used as container category for national-descent categories, whose nations themselves contain many peoples who don't identify as Arabs (for example, some Lebanese will claim stridently that they aren't Arabs, but rather Phoenicians, Iraq has its Kurds, etc). I am nominating the African continent to start, since it is small; if this nomination passes, I will nominate the rest of the Category:People of Arab descent categories, or ask someone with AWB to do so for me.
Again, the main issue is, the way these categories are being used as far as I can tell is as containers to group members of the Arab league countries, but then the categories are called "of Arab descent", implying that everyone within identifies with the ethnicity of Arab people, when in fact the only thing we've established is that their mother country was a member of the Arab League. If these categories were called Category:African people of Arab League country descent it would be a more accurate, but rather silly solution.
As for merge target, the most neutral way is to categorize these by continent (or sub-continent as we do often with Asia), and Southwest Asia is well defined. If we go this route, some categories would have to be removed, and put into "African" descent (e.g. all North African "arab" countries.) I'm also not that happy with "Middle eastern descent" because of various and conflicting definitions of Middle East, but I'm not willing to try to delete that categorization just yet, so an alternative could be Category:African people of Middle Eastern descent (likewise for the country versions.
Note: previous CFD here passed with keep, but I think it's time to revisit this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_5#Category:People_of_Arab_descent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified participants in the last discussion as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arab_world.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all in favor of the child national categories. Nothing is gained by rolling up by a region and as the nom says some of these people might object to be called Arabs. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually a much higher portion of those outside of Iraq in many areas are Chaldeans and Assyrians than are Kurds. I think this whole super-national descent thing is a bad idea. We should have specific by nation descent categories, and we also need to look at limiting their application. When it relies on genealogical research that the person themselves was not aware of until they were in their 50s or in some cases that occurred after the person died, it is not a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all Arabs as an ethnic group are not tied to one continent. There is a ridiculous trend of trying to stuff ethnic groups that are both historically and currently connected to multiple continents into some single continent category. This is over-simplistic for the purpose of having tidy categories. There are huge numbers of self-identifying Arabs who have never been to the Middle East or Southwest Asia. These categories have to include people who are Algerian and self-identify as Arabs immigrating to South Africa. The proposed categories fail here. Not all ethnic groups should be considered as being from a single continent alone. Nationalities sure, but not wide-ranging and multi-continent ethnic groupings, such as Arabs, Latinos, Russians, etc. This is equivalent to saying we should erase all "Yoruba" categories because "African" works better for our arbitrary system, or replacing any mention of "Latino" with "European". The categories should remain slightly complicated because they represent our actual world, with the overlapping identities that exist. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EQ, I think you are misunderstanding how these categories are currently used - they are simply used to group together by-country descent categories - e.g. Category:Ghanaian people of Lebanese descent - thus, nationalities. I never made a claim that Arabs are tied to one continent, and I've argued for a rename but also a rescoping which would put some of them in African categories. Please look at how the categories are used before replying, there's a reason I nominated this, and not Category:Arab-Americans or other similar ones. The Algerians would be within Category:South Africans of African descent, since these groupings are by continent, not by supra-ethnic-grouping - it simply doesn't work because of the way categories function. As for self-identifying Arabs who have never been to the Middle East or Northern Africa, if they identify as Arabs I assume their parents were from one of these countries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You assume a self-identifying Arab in Africa must have parents from the Middle East? I'll give you a chance to re-phrase that, because I don't believe you could believe that. (Preceding comment had no mention of North Africa when I made this comment)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to include NA as well. In any case, it's a moot point - we aren't talking about people who self-identify as arabs - we're talking about people who had lebanese parents, and whether it is appropriate to group them as "arabs". I think, no.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about Arabic people though, the actual non-theoretical articles that are organized here are of people of Arabic descent. Go ahead and look at them. They are also categorized in the already existing Category:African people of Lebanese descent and Category:African people of Syrian descent, which already have a parent of Category:African people of Asian descent. Your proposed continental tree is already in effect for these articles! All you are suggesting here is eliminating a different tree that organizes around Arabic identity. This is the same as the Latin American/Latino vs South American scenario, where we should keep both as they tell us different, but connected things. We should keep the continental tree for the organizational focus it has, and keep the separate but distinct Arab categories for what it organizes. Even though there is a Syria/Lebanon focus to most of these categories they also include non-Syria/Lebanon Arabs and could include more. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We probably also shouldn't change an actual and experienced ethnic grouping, as described here for a forced continental grouping. We aren't going to change the article to "Ghanian Southwest Asians". __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a tighter continental tree for Southwestern Asia, which would be a sub-category of Category:African people of Asian descent. And yes, this is about eliminating the "Arab descent" tree - it's problematic in many ways, but the main one is, people from country X aren't necessarily of Arab descent. Latin American/South American is different, since Latin American applies to almost everyone in country X, but "Arab" doesn't apply to everyone in these countries, not by a long shot. Ghanaian Arabs is a totally different issue, how these groups are named within a country isn't relevant to how we parent this particular set of categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghanaian Arabs is exactly the issue. It's one of the pages in the categories you're proposing to rename. But it's good you admit the ultimate purpose is just to delete the Arab categories. There's nothing stopping you from creating the "Southwest" grouping in the existing continental tree without touching the Arab categories. Anyway, I would suggest notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and probably the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria etc. if you think they're being used predominantly. It would be better to have opinions that aren't based on your personal ideas of how to categorize people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. For example, in the US we may call someone "Black", but if their parents were from Nigeria, we would group them as "of Nigerian descent", which itself would be under "of African descent". What a particular ethnic group is called in a country, or how that country groups things together, is usually not related to how we group categories of descent together, which is usually on a continental or sub-continental basis. Also, please stop the lame assertions - I haven't "admitted" that I want to delete "arab" categories, I want to delete "of Arab descent" categories, as they serve as misleading container categories. We are better off saying from whence person X's parents came - otherwise we risk categorizing people who aren't arab nor identify as such as being "of arab descent". This same argument was put forth a year ago. I already informed the Arab World wikiproject, if you want to go around notifying other projects be my guest just plz do so neutrally. As to your little postscript "opinions that aren't based on your personal ideas of how to categorize people" - please stop with the snide little attacks, as you have no hesitation in expressing "your" opinion. I, and others, have seen this particular category tree as problematic, so I'm taking measures to get it deleted, and I hid nothing, and noted that this was a test nomination and that I would delete the whole tree if it passes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you shouldn't have an opinion, just that there should be more than your opinion. And yes, I understand your test nominations. In this case, you're using a few Arab categories that are only filled with a couple of Syrian and Libyan categories to make a claim that all "of Arab descent" categories should be eliminated. You are quite clear about it. The problem of accidentally categorizing people who don't identify as Arabs would arguably be eliminated by removing every "of Arab descent" category and replacing it with "Southwest Asian". My main issue is with your unproven premise that we only categorize by continental groupings. Obviously we don't, or you wouldn't be trying to remove categories like this. I know you'd like it to be that way, but that kind of fundamentalism only leads to arguments with people organizing Arab, Jewish, Latino(a), Aboriginal, etc. ethnic groupings. If the proposal is to never categorize based on multi-continental ethnic groupings just because they refuse to fit neatly in a single continent, then that is flawed categorizing, not that people are flawed in what they consider their descent to be. It's just ignoring a broad and understood descent group because it doesn't fit your scheme.

There are some ethnic descent groupings that should be and are considered "non-continental". Working on a premise that one continent should rule over all, obviously leads to dumping Jews who have always thought their family was from Europe into Asia categories, and finding the idea of organizing by Arabic descent "problematic". It doesn't have to be. I agree with this...."how that country groups things together, is usually not related to how we group...." but that doesn't mean never categorizing by the less usual exceptions. When an ethnic group straddles different nations, we organize by both national descent and group identity descent; look at the Yoruba, look at the Mohawk. When an ethnic group straddles different continents we should organize by continent, and by ethnic grouping. It doesn't have to be either/or. And you would avoid a lot of these fights asking people to choose one continent or another, when there's no single answer.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome other opinions, and I welcome new project notifications, but your comment came off as rather rude. I've looked through all of the "of arab descent" categories, noted the pattern, and nominated Africa simply because it was small and contained; you could of course add "Ghanaian people of Egyptian descent" and "Ghanaian people of Saudi descent", but it wouldn't change my reasoning. I agree we don't always categorize by continental groupings; Latin American is a notable example, but in the case of Latin American, it is more tightly defined as a set of countries, whereas "Arab" is a much broader and fuzzier ethnicity with many different definitions. As for ethnic categorization, I'd be ok if we had (ethnic category), subdivided by national origin (e.g Jews, American Jews, Arabs, Arab-Americans). OTOH, grouping together (national origin), underneath what is essentially an ethnic categorization, is incorrect. It's all about the order of parenting. For the same reason, we shouldn't put "Israeli people" under "People of Jewish descent", since not all Israelis are Jewish (a "see also" would be more appropriate). I would also be opposed to grouping People from Greenland under "Aboriginal" for example, or grouping Indonesians under "Muslim people". Again, I am not making any claim that ethnicities have to be locked into continents, I'm simply claiming that grouping people by national origin UNDER an ethnicity which is overlapping with their countries but not a superset, is inaccurate and potentially offensive.
Okay, that's constructive. You're arguing against how the category is used and what people have put into the category to get rid of the category itself. Although, if someone placed "Israeli people" under "People of Jewish descent", I would remove "Israeli people" and populate the category, and not use it to delete every category including "of Jewish descent". Now if you look at Ghanaian Arabs#Notable_Ghanaian_Arabs as an example, it's articles like those that could be organized by Arab descent, as well as the nationality/continental tree. If we only do geographic then we only have a by-continent/country fractured-list that is not useful to anyone investigating articles about Arab people outside of Arab majority. It's a question of how to fill the category, not how to never group by the word Arab when talking of descent. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'm not convinced we need an additional "of Arab descent" added to every single bio, which is what this would require. What you are suggesting is a purge of national-origin-based categories, and then addition of individual bios. Remember, this particular category isn't about the current ethnic identity of people, it is about where their ancestors came from; we may have no idea whether the people in question still identify as "Arab" - and they wouldn't be "of arab descent" in that case, they would be Category:Ghanaian arabs for example. I think it's taking a step too far to do "of (broad ethnic category) descent", especially for something like Arab which has so many overlapping and contested definitions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a guy born in Ghana with Coptic christian parents from Egypt could be safely categorized as Category:Ghanaian people of Egyptian descent, but it would be incorrect to keep him as Category:Ghanaian people of Arab descent which the current usage would lead to. The crucial difference is that "of X descent" is not really chosen, it's a given, but your current identity - e.g. do I identify as an Arab - is more of a personal decision (though of course mediated by society). Individual ethnicity is a negotiation, where descent is more static and less up for debate, which is why the grouping by "arab" of people who may not themselves identity as Arab, and even whose parents or grandparents may not have identified as Arab, is problematic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be "every single bio". If some people who don't have a clear connection to "Arab descent" aren't included, then it's fine they're not included. If we eliminate any category where we have to weigh contesting claims of who belongs, we're in trouble. But that doesn't mean the category has no possible or useful population, outside of borderline cases.

And why are you bringing in personal identification again? We say people are of Scottish descent without worrying about whether they think of themselves personally as a Scot. It's about describing their family, as you just asked me to remember. To clarify, are you suggesting eliminating things like Category:People of Jewish descent, Category:People of Coptic descent, and all the other categories that aren't based on strict political nationality? Or just Arab descent? Are you suggesting changing Category:People by ethnic or national descent to Category:People by national descent? __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's case by case basis. In these cases, I think national origin is sufficient without the need for a separate "of Arab descent". It sounds like you're !voting for a purge of the national-origin-based categories out from under Arab and then a categorization of individual bios as needed, so Mr. X would be Category:Ghanaians of Egyptian descent and Category:Ghanaians of Arab descent - if this is the case you should change your !vote, and it would be an acceptable result here, that could be used to purge the rest accordingly. My view, however, is that for an ethnic identity like Arab which is so diffuse and differently defined, I think keeping "Arab" as an ethnic categorization, and not a "descent" categorization, is sufficient. To answer your broader question, I find much of the categorization-by-ethnicity problematic, namely because (a) we don't have a standard for how far back we go (I've seen people categorized based on where their great-great-grandmother came from), and (b) we are likely far too inclusive. I think we should focus any such descent categorizations not on the "facts on the ground" which are massively diverse, to filter down to groupings which are considered and discussed as a group in the country in question and that have some WP:RS behind them. Another issue is, we don't categorize, normally, based on majorities, since it is usually minorities which are discussed, so we have inconsistency there, in that most minorities get classified down to the last degree, while majorities are left in generic cats - however sometimes minorities are classified according to descents for which we have no evidence of RS discussion of same. For example, intersections like Category:Czech people of Ethiopian descent - where it the evidence that this is a notable intersection? Are there large Ethiopian communities in the Czech republic, are there organizations devoted to helping them, do they figure in the history of the Czech republic? Or it is sufficient that one soccer player ends up there, and boom we create a category? That's the current model, and I think it goes too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On investigation these categories are two days old, so I don't think it's fair to say at this point that they're only used for a specific type of Arabic descent or that they're necessarily representative. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually look at how old categories are, and these categories follow the pattern of other categories in Category:People of Arab descent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if not deleted then I've no comment on renaming/merging). The ethnicity (or nationality, religion etc) of a person's parents/grandparents may sometimes be worth including in the text of that person's article, but IMO it's not usually a WP:DEFINING characteristic. See essay WP:DNWAUC. Categorization of people should mainly be by what the person is notable for (e.g. their occupation); the proliferation of categories based on other biographical characteristics should be stopped/reversed. "Descent" is too complex (e.g. with things like illigitimacy, adoption etc) a characteristic to be suitable for categorization. If editors want to record facts like "<notable person>'s maternal grandmother was <ethnicity>" in a more structured way than in the text of WP articles then maybe they should be using Wikidata rather than the Wikipedia categorization system. DexDor (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are "Southwest Asia"'s borders broadly agreed upon? Does it include Georgia and Armenia? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are well defined, its a purely geographic convention and a UN standard: Southwest_Asia. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all not defining for any of these folks. And what DexDor said so eloquently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why single out the African categories? If these categories aren't acceptable for Africa, why are they fine for all other continents? Solar-Wind (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is a test nomination- I will nominate the others if this passes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or rename to "Foo of Middle Eastern descent". Categorising people by their ethnic background is a longstanding practice. How far this is in fact defining, varies according to the degreee of assimilation to the host country. However there is a problem with this nom: Some of the subcategories are including Egypt, whose main inhabited area is not in Asia. One difficulty that we have run into is how broadly to define the term Arab: does it include Middle Eastern Christians? One of the bio-articles concerned the child of a Coptic Christian, presumably from Egypt. The main scope of the subcats seems to be Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorizing a person's article by their ethnicity may be OK (e.g. Category:Politicians by ethnicity). These descent categories are not categorizing by the subject's ethnicity, but by the ethnicity/nationality of their ancestors. So instead of an article being placed in one ethnicity category (which may be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person), the article is placed in any number of descent categories (depending on how many generations back you go) (an example with 4) which are unlikely to be defining characteristics. If a DNA test shows that someone has Viking/Mongol ancestors should they be placed in a descent category for that? DexDor (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no problem with these category titles at all. Who uses the term "Southwest Asian" anyway? Really? But "Arab" is an accepted, commonly understood, commonly used term. Nothing wrong with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename I am opposed to the move by some to erase ethnic and nationality categories on Wikipedia. There are tens of thousands of categories based, in part, on ethnic descent (think of all of the occupation and nationality categories) and it is ridiculous to randomly delete a handful of categories while other ethnicities, ethnic decent and nationalities currently exist. I gather that the editors voting for deletion object to the whole idea of ethnic classification but eliminating a few categories will do nothing to change the enormous structure of categories based on this criteria. Better to take that deletion argument to the Village Pump and address the larger question than delete a few categories that just happened to appear at CfD.
As for "Arab" vs. "Southwest Asian", I vote for Arab simply because that is the existing categories. Arab categories are a child category under the parent category Southwest Asian (which also includes Turkey, Israel, sometimes Central Asian countries). Arab is an ethnic identity that transcends nationality much like Jewish descent does. So, I prefer keeping Arab but I'd accept Southwest Asian over deleting ethnic categories. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 15 December 2013 (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 DC Comics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:DC Comics-related lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is empty, after I moved everything to Category:DC Comics-related lists. NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move everything out of a category you seek to delete. It's the equivalent of shooting a horse then taking a survey on whether anyone wants the horse shot. It also means you ignored the directive "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." that is still on the page you emptied. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but let's get to the point. Category:DC Comics-related lists functions the same ways as Category:Lists of DC Comics. If not delete, then merge them as one.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. Agreed, you shouldn't clear out a category, even if you think it's a dupe; it's best to just leave as is and nominate for a merge. Sometimes, the contents are such that they suggest the scope of the cats isn't the same, and has simply been insufficiently expressed in the name. The contents of the category are a good indication of the intent of the creator, which is why we normally don't empty cats before nominating (removing things which clearly don't fit is of course reasonable, but if removing things which don't fit leads to an empty cat, you should put them back and then nominate).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There doesn't seem to be a perfect standard, but it the "Lists of" category heading seems to match similar usage in the similar categories: Category:Lists of DC Comics characters, Category:Lists_of_Marvel_Comics, Category:Lists_of_comics_by_Marvel_Comics. When gathering a bunch of "List of (blerg)" it looks like the more common heading is something like "Lists of (blerg) lists". Maybe it should be merged the other way and cleaned up. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have you notified the creator of this category that you're proposing deleting it? __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just done it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me! ;-) -- Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Reading what ELAQUEATE wrote, I think "Lists of DC Comics lists" would be a better name for the new merged category. (Same would then count for Category:Lists of Marvel Comics‎.)
I think that "related" in the above mentioned category's name is a little bit misleading. Intention most likely was to indicate that the category is not only for lists of comics books (but also for other media and stuff), but Category:Lists of comics by DC Comics is already the more specific sub-cat. -- Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 18:01, 5 December 2013 (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:American designers by state[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: MERGE to targets as indicated, and DELETE Category:American designers by state. The debate does not persuade any who would merge that the per-state categories are useful since they capture so many different types of designer at too fine a level of detail. The general "your behaviour is bad", "no, yours is bad" stuff is not useful to a closing admin, I promise. -Splash - tk 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There aren't enough designers in Category:American designers to merit splitting by state, this scheme was started a while ago and hasn't blossomed (added) until Alansohn expanded it massively after the nomination for deletion (end added), so I think we can get rid of it. There are plenty of job-specific subcats into which these people can be diffused. The head category of Category:American designers only has 175 people, who could likely be further diffused. There's no reason to group together furniture designers, graphic designers, typographers, and landscape designers on a state-by-state basis, especially given the top-level cat can be diffused to more specific jobs. Grouping these together by state will have the result of putting several people who have very different jobs together in the same by-state category, like those who design automobiles, costumes, landscapes, buildings, furniture, when these professions have quite different rules, regulations, and associations, often on a state-by-state basis. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: please see tangentially related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3#Category:American_women_graphic_designers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3#Category:Women_designers
  • Keep All Waiting a full eight weeks to declare that a category "hasn't blossomed" seems a bit hasty, but the project seems to have taken firm root after all, with the addition of several more categories and a doubling of the number of articles in this structure, which is now placed into Category:American designers by state. Category:American designers has a total of more than 2,000 articles, more than ample to justify splitting into its component states, separate and apart from any diffusion by job-specific categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was rather pointy Alan. If you wanted to expand this scheme, you could have waited until the discussion was finished. I don't think anyone was disputing whether the other states *could* be added, I was simply arguing there is no *need* to. (Note: The California category was created in 2010, possibly earlier - I can't see back that far). I'm going to nominate the rest, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't create more categories in this scheme until the discussion is complete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was rather WP:DICKish, Obi. I never knew that addressing an issue raised by a nominator could be pointy. If you have a genuine issue with the scope of the number of states that were included, then that has been addressed. I'd appreciate if you allowed the other 1,500 remaining articles to be allocated by state before further dickery. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, you left me no choice. If I didn't nominate them, then you (and possibly others) would spend time filling them up, only to have them nominated later, in a separate discussion, with the exact same scope. The lame move was in adding to a scheme that was itself up for deletion. Nothing prevents you from expanding this if the scheme is kept, but if it's not, it's a lot of wasted work, and certainly a lot more of a pain to nominate the lot for deletion after your rapid-fire expansion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, I left you no choice!?! Pathetic. You raised an issue, and the issue is being addressed. I will be creating further state categories as they arise, and there are 1,500 more article to be subdivided. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the scheme hadn't blossomed was one argument; the other, more relevant argument, is that there aren't enough in the head cat to justify dividing by state. Designers is more of a container category in any case, since all of these design jobs are so different, it doesn't make sense to group them. Please don't create more categories; feel free to categorize people, if you like, but your work may be undone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You raised issues here and they were addressed. Please limit your disruption to the damage you have already caused. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, I haven't caused any damage whatsover. If these categories are kept, a bot will remove the notices and life will go on. however, if you continue to create by-state categories, and the ones nominated above get deleted, then we will have to have a whole other discussion to delete the ones that weren't nominated, unless people !voting here are wise enough to say "Delete all <state> + designer" categories - I'm not going to tag them further as I'm sick of playing this game, but please consider that waiting a week would have cost you nothing and would have saved us both a lot of time. The principle issue I raised is not being addressed by creating more state categories, please read my reasoning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, it is truly amazing how disruptive one vindictive editor can be. There is a well-defined structure of categories for people by occupations by state, such as Category:People from Louisiana by occupation. Any objection to including all 50 states in this nomination and decide this issue once and for all? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, please assume good faith, I'm not vindictive at all, I really could care less; I think it's a scheme that doesn't work, with 3 states or with 50 - designers is far too vague - there are california associations of architects, and there are special laws architects must follow on a state-by-state basis, but there aren't california associations of designers which include all of the people you're sticking in there. If you'd just let the discussion run it's course, then we'll know - if the scheme survives, your help in populating/etc would be most welcome. If it doesn't survive, why do all that work right now? My suggestion is, when someone nominates a scheme for deletion, that you do not create new categories within that scheme; rather you wait till the discussion finishes. If you want to add the other 30 states, and then nominate them for deletion, go ahead, but I'm done though. We'll see how this one turns out, and then I'll let someone else clean up the remainder if they are deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination attributed the need for deletion to the lack of "blossoming". That is being addressed and is anything but "pointy" as you have falsely claimed. If I waited until after the three existing categories were deleted to create a nationwide structure you would have demanded their deletion by pointing to this original CfD. I offered my argument above and there are 1,500 more articles still to be diffused into this structure. You are not only playing a game, you're changing the rules of the game by changing the nomination repeatedly. When you nominate three articles for deletion by claiming that the structure hasn't blossomed, it's in staggering bad faith on you part to bitch and moan about adding to the category structure. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of blossoming was one issue (e.g. California having sat there since 2010), but again, the bigger issue is, designers is a vague word that groups together many much more specific professions that have organizations and codes of conduct and special laws etc. Alan, you can AWB all you want, I'm done changing the nomination, but don't complain if people vote to delete this scheme and undo your work.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge with the American designers category having less than 200 people we do not need to subdivide by state. We do not need to subdivide every profession by state. We should limit it to professions where there is a close connection. The problem is that in some professions especially Americans move around a lot. I have fear what would happen if we created Category:Michigan physicists. The reality of a lot of modern academics is that they have a BA from a university in one state, a PhD from another state, did post-doc somewhere else, and worked in 2 other states as a professor. Movement between states is way too high to justify by profession break-down at the state level, unless there is something that connects the state itself with the profession. Lawyers by state makes sense, since each state has its own form of law. Others may make sense, but this one does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've never heard of a guideline which suggests categories with less than 200 articles shouldn't be split. There is ample scope to split by state. Obviously it only makes sense to add an article to a state specific category if the person is strongly associated with the state (the same argument with apply to the "People from... " categories). Almost all the new categories have at least two articles in them, and there is probably scope to add others from the main category. Sionk (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, designers is a rather vague term,which applies to all sorts of design jobs, so I don't see any reason to group them together by state. It doesn't make sense to group individual architects, landscape designers, typographers, graphic designers, costume designers, set designers, and so on together on a state-by-state basis. We normally only split American people categories by state when we get to over 1000 people in the category, at the very least. In this case, they all fit on the same page, and those in the head cat should probably be diffused further in any case. If we had 2000 costume designers you might have a split-by-state case, but not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the entire rationalization you offered is "There aren't enough designers in Category:American designers to merit splitting by state". There are thousands of them and they are being diffused by state, and hopefully all 50 (plus D.C.) will be covered to address your concerns. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all a bit daft. Many US States are larger and more populous than most countries too! Designers are people who design, it couldn't be much clearer. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, people who design what? costumes, sets, typography, buildings? these are totally different professions, with totally different histories. Again, for anyone of the particular professions, like architects, you may have a case to split by state, but not a hodge-podge which groups a bunch of random people who have "designer" in their title together. The head cat only has 175 people, and it could like be diffused.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has been going through the categories in the last half hour and emptying them (or up-merging to Category:American designers). It's really not proper to pre-empt a deletion discussion is it? As for the term "designer", well, if Obi has issues with the word, why not nominate Category:American designers for deletion too. 'Designer' is a very clear description. Sionk (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't me. American designers is really best as a container category; as I said it probably just needs to be diffused further. Designer, tout court, is not really a profession.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, tout court, your actions are only further undermining your argument. You have been manipulating additional categories into Category:American designers, without realizing that its parent is Category:American people by occupation. Rather than the 175 articles you erroneously claimed, there are now somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 articles in the Category:American designers structure, which is appropriately defined as an "occupation" (not the "profession" you have inaccurately used), and which seems far more than enough to build all 50 states worth of Category:American designers by state. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, occupation is the top-level container, which makes sense. However, to me it doesn't make sense to group completely different professions together by state. All of these are different cases, but this particular one, on designers, just doesn't work because of the diversity of design professions; bringing them all together under Iowa doesn't jibe with any real-world categorization I've seen, and I also think it's misleading; there isn't a close association with "Designer" + "state" in the same way one might find an association with architect + state or doctor + state or lawyer + state. Also, I'm not sure why adding new categories to Category:American designers undermines my argument; I know and recognize and accept and agree that there are thousands of designers, you don't need to keep making this point, which is not under dispute. What is under dispute is whether it's worth bringing them together by state, because these professions differ are so heterogeneous - from costume design to architecture, there isn't a very close link.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely your issue is with the definition of 'designer', rather than the sub-categorization? You are suggesting that if the occupation was clearly defined you wouldn't have a problem with sub-categorization. Aren't there quite a few vaguely defined occupations, for example 'artists' and 'scientists'. I don't see what prevents them being sub-categorised (in fact, they are). Sionk (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as for artists, it's probably because there were so many in the head cat that separating by state made sense. If we diffused the head cat here I bet we'd only have a few dozen who couldn't really be placed in the subcats - either b/c their field of design doesn't exist as a subcat yet or because they are known for designing a broad diversity of things - eg people who design furniture, buildings, jewelry, landscape, etc, but these are not that common. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that artists are diffused by state is because it's an effective navigation tool that exists in parallel with subcategorization by type of artist, not because there are too many articles in the parent. As Sionk points out, this is a standard across Wikipedia. Thanks to the further additions you've made, there are several thousand designers now grouped in Category:American designers, despite the misleading claim that the category "only has 175 people" that you still haven't corrected in the nomination. You clearly believe that all of these designers have a strong common defining characteristic -- you have no problem grouping them in the parent -- but you don't believe that they have enough in common to group by state. To be perfectly honest, tout court, this comes off as staggeringly inconsistent. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Alan, this is not misleading. Those not further categorized below numbered around 175 at the time of the nomination. We regularly group things together by categories when we would likely not group the articles themselves together - this is common and not inconsistent, you should be well aware of this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely and entirely misleading; There aren't 175 articles, there are about 3,000. You seem to be unaware how this same exact system works rather effectively and with broad consensus at the directly corresponding Category:American artists by state, which has subcategories for all 50 states, existing in parallel with other categorization schemes by types of artists. Artists, such as the randomly selected Benjamin Paul Akers, are listed in both structures, with Akers identified BOTH in Category:American sculptors AND in Category:Artists from Maine, while other artists are categorized by multiple styles and / or multiple states. The fact that artists move appears as irrelevant as the ludicrous what if of Category:Michigan physicists. Neither artists nor designers have any licensing requirements by state. As an example, the Maine category includes 47 different artists from a wide and disparate range of branches of the art world, many of whom have nothing in common with each other beyond the word "artist". All artists have being artists in common, just as all designers have being designers as a common trait, one that you recognize in adding various designer categories to the parent Category:American designers. The artist structure is the exact one that I used as a model to create and populate Category:American designers by state, with the addition of a few dozen state-specific categories. It seems to me rather disingenuous on your part, tout court, to feign that you are shocked, shocked to find that another editor is populating a structure that your nomination indicated was underpopulated / hadn't blossomed sufficiently. By your own logic, shouldn't you be tossing in the entire Category:American artists by state structure for deletion as well? Alansohn (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Architects, landscape designers/architects, and even interior designers have licensing requirements in different states. Moreoever, as has been stated umpteen times, the key difference is in the ability to diffuse the lead category - if not otherwise mostly fully diffusable, we will often use by-state divisions. This is the case with artists - there are just many people, indeed probably over 1000, who could not be categorized as anything other than "American artist" because the scope of their work is so broad. There are "designers" who have the same broad range, but it's a more rare trait - in my short review I found a few within the 175 in the parent cat who couldn't really be easily diffused down to the subcats. Otherwise, Alan, I'm afraid you're just going to have to get over it. The lack-of-blossoming was not the only reason I nominated it, and creating more cats just made more work for everyone. Once this nomination closes, you can consider whether it was a good use of your time or not - I'm far beyond caring at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again, and to be perfectly frank here, tout court, betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this structure and of the entire categorization system. The purpose of "by state" categories is not merely to diffuse the un-diffusable. I can point to thousands of artists who are in separate and parallel structures by type of art AND by state within the parent Category:American artists. While you view the "by state" only as a means for category fetishists to find a way to shuffle articles out of a parent category, the other readers and editors who use these structures use them to group articles by occupation within state, a system that goes well beyond including designers and artists. There were thousands of articles in the structure for Category:American designers when you added the original nomination -- not the 175 you have repeatedly misrepresented -- and you have added thousands more who can all be diffused by state. The argument about licensing requirements only further undermines your claim for deletion; the licensing requirement is a stronger argument for organization by state, while I know of no licensing requirements for artists. If you read your nomination, the lack-of-blossoming was the one and only justification you offered for deletion, and my addition of categories was intended to solve the problem you pointed out. Your "beyond caring" would have been far more helpful while I was working to solve your problem while you were working even harder to undermine this effort. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, repeating something doesn't make it true. The fact that different designers had diff licensing requirements by state is an argument to group them by state by profession, not as abstract 'designers' - architects for example is already divided by state. If it would make you happier I'm happy to nominate the artists by state tree for deletion, I don't see much value there either at the end of the day. Otherwise, lets just let others weigh in here people are probably tired of the sniping. Obiwan out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All The issue here is that Category:American designers should be a broad container category. Finding out that an aerospace designer, a fashion designer, and a video game designer are all from Montana is a useless grouping. Now, if one of these designer subcats has enough tto populate by state (like Category:American architects by state), go for it. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per RevelationDirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. This seems to be covering a lot of different design professions. It will be better to have them split by profession. Some state categories seem well-populated some; others empty. Deletion will potentially lose useful data, so that the appropriate solution is to merge and then encourage users gradually to empty the category into more specific ones for each profession. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom, Peterkingiron, and RevelationDirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Adding up everyone from Category:American designers and its immediate subcategories, we have 3,381 designers. That's quite sufficient for maintaining a category structure; yeah, we're going to have the occasional overlap (it won't be precisely 3,381), but that shouldn't make a huge dent in the numbers. New idea: let's also use these categories as a way of subdividing the "People from STATE" categories who fit one of these categories. Huh! It helps readers navigate! It makes Wikipedia easier to use! We have a better encyclopedia! Whether we're passing a precise number of articles in the parent is generally considered meaningless here, so it would help if the nominator would respect common practise. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all designer cats. The designer cat incorrectly mixes people involved in lots of different professions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2013 (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:Wikipedia personalities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 December 20. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've nominated all of the Category:Internet personalities for speedy renames to match the head article of Internet celebrity, but this one is less about celebrities but rather just people where significant fame comes from being associated with wikipedia, but to me "celebrity" doesn't quite work, but I'd be happy for a rename to Category:Wikipedia celebrities as well if people prefer. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see related discussion on the female category here
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:People from Otavalo, Ecuador[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge because the two categories have the same scope and because the corresponding article is Otavalo (city)‎. Pichpich (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 17:34, 6 December 2013 (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:Real Salt Lake matches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: nearly empty. I can't imagine that it will become populated anytime soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4&oldid=1138397805"