Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:English motorboat racers[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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Motorboat racers represent the UK, not England, and there are not enough articles to justify diffusing the category. The use of English is also rather imprecise as several racers have mixed backgrounds, so categorising by nationality would be desirable. QueenCake (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. Whizz40 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (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:Town history[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. MER-C 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as the two categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per nominator's rationale. Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (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:People associated with the Beatles[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: administrative close: category was speedily deleted as a mass deletion of blocked users' creations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar category deleted in November 2012 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_3 with "The" rather than "the". Don't see that anything has changed. Egghead06 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the cat in 2012 mentioned above. I created it because there are people strongly associated with the Beatles, such as Mal Evans, Brian Epstein, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who are currently categorised under the generic Beatles cat, as well as Klaus Voormann and Billy Preston who are not in the Beatles cat, but are listed in their infoboxes as being associated with the Beatles. If we already categorise and link such people, but in an ad hoc way, so some go under a generic cat, while others get an infobox listing, it tends to make sense to give them a specific defining cat. The objection is that such a cat is too loose, but so is the generic Beatles cat, and that's what is being used at the moment. I think we need to trust the judgement of editors to find a relevant association, which is what we do already. This cat would serve to group together articles which already have a defining link. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of a category is to bring together articles that have the same defining characteristic. "being associated with" is categorization by trivialization. As SilkTork points out, there is a Beatles cat, and anybody who is more than "associated with" will be included in that cat. I also note that two different editors have already removed Bob Dylan from the cat, and I would have done too. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely vague and thus serves no purpose. --Kinu t/c 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "associated with" is a not a normally an objective criterion, and nothing here seems to indicate to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedy G5. Created by a sockpuppet. Nymf (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (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.

Rivers and streams of the US[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By State
By County
Rivers & Others
Nominator's rationale: This nomination follows on from the renaming and reorganisation of seven of the US states, as per this discussion in October 2015. This proposal is for a straightforward renaming of the Category:Rivers of the United States and appropriate subcategories to Rivers and streams of x. The rationale is to have consistent naming of the US categories so that they encompass all rivers, streams etc. and that it is completed under one renaming discussion, to save piecemeal renaming in the future. (Tagging of the categories listed is now underway complete)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Reasonable expansion of scope. Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but use "Rivers and streams" as a parent category of rivers. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and the outcome of the October 2015 discussion linked above.--TimK MSI (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the earlier discussion. Kmusser (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but to "Category:Streams in X". "Stream" is the official term that is used by the GNIS, the ultimate authority on geographical names in the US, to refer to any linear, flowing body of water, including streams. Thus, "Rivers and streams" is redundant. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom WP is for the common person, not experts. To categorize large bodies of flowing water as anything other than rivers flies in the face of common English usage. Having both 'rivers and streams' in the category name (with notes indicating that this includes ALL flowing bodies of water)should satisfy most readers and editors, here--but of course not the POV extremists. After the US, the rest of the world should be changed also. US is not special here. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should just ignore the terminology used by reliable sources, just because you say so, and I'm a "POV extremist" for wanting to get the terminology right. Absurd as hell, if you ask me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earlier discussion showed that the term stream is used differently by academics, who use it for everything, as opposed to the common understanding that a stream is a small river, with EB declaring that the terms river and stream are synonymous. The problem being (as shown by the many good examples) is that there is no definitive way of distinguishing between rivers and streams via naming or metrics, with the USGS admitting "There's no hard and fast rule" of differentiating between the two. Using Rivers and streams, covers all the bases, so that one person’s river, can be found (in these categories) as easily as the other person’s stream...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For cities, towns and villages, we could find no robust definition of where one stopped and another started: if was often a POV issue. I would suggest that the same applies here. In my part of UK we have rivers and brooks; in other parts, they have rivers and becks. In US, you have rivers, creeks, streams, and perhaps other names. As I am not in US, I do not know local usage and am thus only commenting. I see two options: to rename, on the basis that this will cover everything from the mighty Mississippi to the humblest trickle; or to keep, but add a headnote to every category that it includes all natural flowing watercourses, whether or not called rivers, including creeks and other streams. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment While this discussion is going on, Jakob is systematically deleting all flowing bodies of water from Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania by county subcategories leaving empty Category:Rivers of xxx County categories and placing the articles only in Category:Bodies of water of xxx County categories. In so doing, he is violating the terms of how discussions on this page are supposed to proceed. He is producing the illogical result that Pennsylvania flowing bodies of water remain in Category:Rivers of Pennsylvania but not in the by county categories. He seems to justify this by saying this is his own category structure that he invented to prove that these articles are not about 'rivers', but instead are just about 'streams'. Hmains (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh> and continues even though the Cfr template says, please do not empty this category while the discussion is in progress...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly in preparation for ignoring a possible decision here he disagrees with and just doing as he likes. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For simplicity and brevity. If we're going to add "streams", logically we should add all the other names like creek, beck, brook, gill, run... Also, since the decision here is likely to impact every other flowing waterbody in the world, the discussion should be widened before taking it. Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, the line between a river and a stream varries with location and other factors, so we should just cover both terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and earlier discussion. This is to ensure nobody will ever feel compelled to differentiate between rivers and streams, given differing specs and historical naming in different places. Re: the above Keep, there's no necessity to add other names, as 'streams' covers everything that 'rivers' doesn't. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I can understand where Jakob's coming from, but as others have pointed out going with just "streams", while it might impress the people at the USGS, would probably leave us with well-meaning new editors regularly recreating "Rivers of ..." categories. We don't have to slavishly follow our sources' terminology. Otherwise we're going to end up with "Watercourses of ...", which moots the distinction but confuses anyone who hasn't gone to law school or studied environmental science. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (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:Transracial individuals[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia can't decide what a transracial individual is, how can there be a category of them? 66.87.114.203 (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To supplement my nominating statement, I refer editors to Transracial (a disambiguation page that doesn't help define who belongs in a category of "transracial individuals") and wikt:transracial (which describes the category's intended usage of the word as "rare"). 66.87.114.62 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never heard this term before. The category currently includes 4 individuals passing as Native Americans without having Native American ancestry, and one individual passing as an African American without having African ancestry. Is this a defining characteristic? Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article of interest relative to this is passing (sociology) (this category is a subcat of Category:Passing (sociology)); a read there from my POV seems to indicate this category is a trivial categorization. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Historically those passing were Euro-Americans with small amounts of African ancestry living in societies that insisted on a one drop rule categorizing those of African ancestry only by that fact and ignoring the preponderance of their ancestry. This is very different than Rachel Dolezal for whom there is no documented African-Ancestry, and just plain lied about her ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. If "passing" is defining (not sure that it could be) then presumably, all the Jews who passed as gentiles during WW2 would fit in (including the ones who "discovered" their Jewish roots long after the war, as a certain US secretary of state did), and all (formerly) closeted gays and lesbians who "passed" as straight, could get a category; what about non-Asian actors who played Charlie Chan? Further proof that "race" and "ethnicity" categories at WP are not valid since they are social constructs and highly mutable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos. DexDor (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not categorize by race. Beyond this, is someone like Michael A. Healy whose parents intentionally raised him as white from birth, even though his mother had enough black ancestry to be a slave transracial, or did he just never acknowledge the small amount of his ancestry that was black. What of someone with the same amount of black ancestry as Healy who never knew they had any, but it was determined by geneologists after their death?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, we do categorize by race, gender, and sexual orientation. This is no different. Just because this situation is more difficult does not make it different. Scr★pIronIV 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full disclosure, I am the editor who created the Transracial Individuals category. Even though some editors, some people have not heard of it, I would say transracial is akin to transgender, and worthy of being added to Wikipedia as a category, an article. Just as there are people who wish to change their gender their are people who wish to change their ethnicity, race as well. It's already being written about in notable publications like The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/13/op-ed-rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner-and-idea-transracial and CBS News: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/12/nyu-professor-naacp-rachel-dolezal/ Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too subjective. Questionable if this is even a "thing." Currently, the term "transracial" is used in literature about "transracial adoption," so the parents belonging to a different race than the child, which is not the usage for this category. None of the people in this category identified themselves by this neologism. As others have mentioned, this isn't "passing," since these people had none of the heritage they claimed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and can't reflect original research or speculation. The correct course of action would be to study this concept, if it has validity IRL, publish in peer-reviewed journals, until it gains traction and gets included in secondary, published sources and everyday parlance. Yuchitown (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Delete -- If this is to be kept, a much clearer definition is needed as to what it is about. My immediate reaction was that it was about people with parents of different races but that ought to be "interracial people". If I guess correctly, it is about people of one race who identified so strongly with another that they pretended to belong to it. That might provide an adequate basis for a category, as long as this does not require POV or ATTACK issues. However, as at present structured there is no definition. Unless a clear one is provided in a headnote, it requires TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective and vague; not a well-recognized and clearly defined group. Neutralitytalk 07:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither of the five articles in the category is convincingly about transracialism, they are either about concealing one's racial background (for whatever reasons) or about adopting a new ethnic identity (while ethnic is not necessarily racial). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are there any other opinions on this topic? It's time for a verdict I'd say. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (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 Chief ministers of Indian states[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see no reason why religion and political office-holder needs to be combined to make a category. Fails WP:OCEGRS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not restricted to India alone. Easterners/Westerners around the world might be voting based on religions/sects/castes too and this might start a new trend of having politicians categories by their religious inclinations. That should be first discussed in a broader sense and not on an isolated CfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing people based on their religion, categorizing them based on the intersection of religion and political office is a much more complex matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the assumption that Muslim Chief ministers of Indian states do not have a common political (Muslim-related) conviction. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are very rare instances that a Muslim goes on to become CM of any Indian state, which can be believed from the fact that, out of 29 states of India, only 1 state-Jammu and Kashmir is Muslim majority with 68% Muslim population. In J&K too, only Kashmir valley is Muslim-majority while Jammu and Ladakh are not.--Nidafatimashahi (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (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:Youth choirs[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear difference between youth and children. No advantage to separate categories in terms of category size or definition. Ibadibam (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have separate (although muddled up in places) category structures for youth/child organizations (e.g. Category:Youth organizations and Category:Child-related organizations). Should they all be merged (e.g. Category:Youth religious organizations and Category:Children's religious organizations)? and if not then why just the choirs categories? DexDor (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no clear definition of when one is one or the other. No reason to preserve this mess because the large categorization scheme is just as confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the usual distinction in the choral world is between unbroken and broken voices. A Children's choir will have only unbroken voices, while a Youth choir has broken voices. That said, with some voices not breaking until the age of 15 or 16, placing teenagers in a Children's category is fraught with cultural baggage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Young people change very considerably with age. I would suggest that a boundary needs to be drawn at about 11-13, so that if the participants are mostly below that age they are children, but if mostly 11-18, they are youth. I appreciate that this is a fuzzy boundary, but real life does not always fit into tight categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2015 (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/2015_December_9&oldid=1138408455"