Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1[edit]

Category:Pichilemu City Council members, 1894–1897[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are all categories under Category:Pichilemu City Council members by term

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category is limited to a specific set of years and a position. We do not usually have categories for term of a legislative body.TM 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very low level of Chilean government that does not warrant this level of navigation coverage. Pichilemu is one of Chile's smaller communes with a population of around 12,000. I don't think many of the elected councillors merit an article, but I'm happy to tolerate them on the grounds of respect and that the articles are succinct. Category:Mayors of Pichilemu already covers well the most notable government workers of this small town. SFB 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Since local councillors are generally NN, the number who are notable for other reasons and fall inot this category are likely to be small, so that the mosat we need is a single category for members; if even that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 5 January 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 from Cordova, South Carolina[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 15:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A town of around 100 people is not a viable category for populating biographies. SFB 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 05:20, 5 January 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:Converts to Protestantism from Anglicanism[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Anglicanism is generally categorised within Protestantism. Currently contains only two pages; I just removed two others that were incorrect or unjustified. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Non-logical category as it is effectively converts to the same thing. SFB 15:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Former Anglicans is the right place to be for these two pages (while I would consider neither of the two to be a case of conversion in the proper sense of the word). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 2 January 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:Former Reformed Protestants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems to have been created for former Christians in the Dutch Reformed Church, which is inappropriately narrow. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge though I think this is more a matter of WP:SMALLCAT than of WP:NARROWCAT. That is, I wouldn't have supported the merge if there would have been, say, 10 pages in the category (then I would have proposed a rename instead). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 2 January 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:FBI agents convicted of murder[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 seems to be the consensus of the discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Note that the article itself has already been parented to the other of the nominated category's parent, so a dual merge is not necessary. No objection against re-creation the category once more content is available. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed) I oppose proposal to upmerge because I don't think an FBI agent is a police officer. Perhaps deleting the category without "upmerging" would be best. Note the one article in the category is already in Category:FBI agents with criminal convictions which has an espionage sub-category as well as the murder sub-category. There also is Category:American government officials convicted of crimes, which has not yet been subdivided into murder vs. others. (Aside: note small inconsistency in wording of "convicted of crimes" vs. "with criminal convictions" in category usage.) But also I am not sure that an FBI agent would be considered an American government official, because officials are usually considered to be public, official representatives while an FBI agent would often be secret, not publicly known. I think just delete the category based on wp:smallcat. --doncram 15:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay i revised my comment to "vote" for Delete the category. --doncram 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Open to Renaming Parent I'm find with this merge and it matches the current parenting of the article. Changing the parent from police" to "law enforcment" might be a better name for the parent article. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and rename of target to Category:American law enforcement officers convicted of murder which is a broader and more useful target and avoids the potential misinterpretation that the contents all need to be of the officer polic rank. SFB 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Probably better that way, yes. I now support deletion of the nominated category anyway as it is not navigating any content. SFB 03:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trendy but not defining; the only article in the category John Connolly (FBI) I removed because he retired from the FBI years before the convictions, so that the intersection of the two is inappropriate factually. (see WP:BLP). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above removal of sole entry; now empty. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of Category:Police officers and its subcats to change "police" to "law enforcement", but only if that is applicable internationally. As for the cat, delete as small/empty. - jc37 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of Category:Police officers and subcategories, from "police" to "law enforcement" as that seems to be the intended scope. Delete the empty FBI category. Mamyles (talk) 21:18, 23 March 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.

Australian politicians[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 the first two sections. There does not appear to be consensus concerning "unsuccessful candidacy" categories. And due to that, and just the sense that the rest of the nom appears more to be brainstorming, I'm only closing based upon the first two sections. Feel free to re-nominate the rest (while presumably keeping this discussion in mind). - jc37 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose renaming:
  • Moving all members of (but leaving the parent category)
  • Further changes for consideration
Specifics of this last point, being added gradually

Nominator's rationale: This discussion is the result of preliminary discussion here. In short, the Australian politician categories are at the moment a bit of a mess. The Liberal and National categories (the main conservative parties) are split by state, but in practice this is enforced so that members of the federal parliament remain in the main category and state politicians go in the state category. The first part of this proposal addresses the ambiguity here, and explicitly identifies the qualifications required to be in each category. Furthermore, it extends this division ot the various other parties, in line with international practice.

Furthermore, it is suitable to also consider here some further issues with Australian politicians categories. The occasional inclusion of non-elected candidates and party officials within the "politicians" categories has highlighted that there is currently no provision made for such people, and therefore I am further proposing a standardisation of the way of dealing with these.

Further refinement of this admittedly wide-ranging proposal is earnestly hoped for (particularly in the name of the "unsuccessful candidates" categories, which as has rightly been pointed out adds a level of judgement that may not be accurate, especially where the person was perhaps successful in running for lower office, e.g. local council, mayor). Note also that owing to inconsistent treatment of these categories (e.g. federal politicians being placed in state categories and vice versa), there would need to be some degree of manual checking when the categories are changed, together with a great degree of legwork in the splits, for which I am happy to volunteer. Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bravo for trying to untangle this particular ball of wool. I'm generally supportive of this idea, except for the "Parliament of Australia" wording which just seems a bit awkward to me. How would Category:Liberal Party of Australia members of the Federal Parliament or [[Category:Liberal Party of Australia members of the Commonwealth Parliament? They're already disambiguated by the party name, I don't think there would be many members of our Liberal Party who were members of other "federal parliaments", for instance. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate that the wording seems a bit fussy in that instance, but it comes into play with things like Category:Liberal Democratic Party members of the Parliament of Australia, which allows us to do away with the yucky parentheses for disambiguation (or with things like the Country Liberal Party that are unique but don't have "Australia" in their name). In a further point above I suggested that these categories would all be in the parent category Category:Members of the Parliament of Australia by party as well, so I would be inclined to say the fussiness might be the price we have to pay in that instance - but open to other suggesetions. Frickeg (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frickeg here. It might be mildly convoluted for parties with "Australia" in the name, but for those that don't - the Free Trade Party, the Protectionist Party, the Commonwealth Liberal Party, the the Liberal and Country League, the Country Liberal Party, the Democratic Labor Party, and a bunch of the newer minors, "Commonwealth Parliament" could be anywhere for those not familiar with Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. It's only a minor thing, and doesn't stop my Support for the changes as proposed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would it not be better to say Federal members of the Liberal Party of Australia, and 'WA members of the Liberal Party of Australia etc this would encompass both the successful and the unsuccessful candidates. With people like Christen Porter who have stood in both would be placed in both categories, subcats for Ministers & shadow Ministers...Gnangarra 06:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to distinguish between people who actually served as politicians and those who ran unsuccessfully. Porter would, of course, be in both the federal and WA categories. This proposal doesn't really deal with ministerial categories, which are their own kettle of fish (but do exist, as Category:Government ministers of Australia). Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Frickeg's proposal is a bit clearer - "WA members of the Liberal Party of Australia" could be state or federal (and that's a problem we have under the current nomenclature), or not elected or having run for elected office at all but merely party members; "Liberal Party of Australia members of the Parliament of Western Australia" and "Liberal Party of Australia members of the Parliament of Australia" is unambiguous and clearly Porter would be both. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- As an Englishman, I am reluctant foramlly to vote, but the proposed category names are much too long. Not all politicians are MPs, so that moving a "politicians" category to an "MPs" category is inappropriate. UK MPs categories have MPs in the category name. While it may formally be "Parliament of Austrialia", "Australian Parliament MPs" is short, so that "Liberal Democrat MPs in Australian Parliament" would be better. I leave it to Australians to devise an acceptable scheme precisely. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second part of the proposal (at the bottom) addresses the first part of this: it creates separate and clear categories for people who have held various elected offices and people who have served other partisan roles, thus eliminating the mishmash that's there now. As for the rest: "Australian Parliament MPs" is a colloquialism, vague, and bad grammar. I would not support this change. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see "issues" with the "unsuccessful candidates for..." categories. If a person stood for the 2014 election but was not elected, the become an "Unsuccessful candidate". If they subsequently stand again (for the same or a different seat) and are elected, they become a "<Party> member of the Parliament of <jurisdiction>". Are they still an unsuccessful candidate as well? What if one was state and the other federal? Does it make a difference if they were a local councillor or mayor before the first state candidature (without a party affiliation in local government)? A similar issue would be people who resigned as members of the upper house to stand for a lower house seat, but were not elected. They therefore became "Unsuccessful" after having been a member.
I would see the category as becoming redundant for an article once they win an election for something: it's meant to address a specific class of articles that we currently have no place for in the category structure. I think this would be easily enough explained in the category description to eliminate the situations you rightly note. The only situation that this wouldn't cover is that where they've been elected as a partisan councillor (everything else would be covered in this proposed structure), and I would be okay with either changing "Australian Labor Party mayors" to "Australian Labor Party mayors and councillors" or adding an additional "Australian Labor Party councillors" category to address that issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I have no problem with separating members of <state> parliament from <state> members of federal parliament, and strongly support uniform naming structure. --Scott Davis Talk 13:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the separation of the concepts of politicians by party membership and members of parliament by party. I will leave the specifics to those more knowledgeable about Australian politics. Also, I'm not keen on "unsuccessful candidates" as a defining feature. SFB 15:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was proposed because we've got a lot of people who are notable for other reasons who all have something in common in that they've made partisan runs for office, but aren't "politicians" since they never served in that role. I feel like this is a category that needs to fit within the structure somehow, but am very open to suggestions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want to emphasise that I too am very much open to suggestions on the "Unsuccessful candidates" name, which is only part of the proposal because we didn't really get anything better together in the previous discussion. "Unelected" has the same issues as "unsuccessful", and just "candidates for" is even more unclear about who should and shouldn't be in the category. Frickeg (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm kind of dubious as to whether a category of people who failed to get into political office is (a) going to group like people, and (b) a definitive feature of such people (given that their notability will lie elsewhere, presumably?). SFB 22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue is that at the moment these people end up in the general politician categories, where they don't belong; on the other hand they often have a long history with the party in question and at the very least are party members. I do think it's a legitimate grouping; it's not the source of their notability, of course, but then, neither is the year they were born. Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd suggest that "unsuccessful" isn't necessary — the similar categories which already exist in Canada to serve the very same purpose, just use "candidates" without specifying "unsuccessful". And while we do get the occasional editor who tries to add elected legislators to the categories as well, simply clarifying to those editors that the categories are meant for people who ran as candidates but didn't win has always been enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm good with that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds good to me too. Is there any preference between "Candidates for the Australian Labor Party" and "Australian Labor Party candidates"? Frickeg (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Australian Labor Party candidates" would seem to fit better with the rest of the structure, perhaps, but no strong feelings either way here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The proposed changes improve the consistency of Australian politician categories with the way such categories are structured in most other countries. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • thought bubble to have "members of the 33rd Australian Federal Parliament" or "members of the 34th Victorian State Government" rather than liberal/labor/green/national/pup/purple whatever groupings of parliaments then have the separate political party cats as the catch all for candidates regardless of their success. ie Member of the Liberal Party of Australia from NSW Gnangarra 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not keen on this. It would throw people who served in a bunch of capacities together (so I couldn't say, separate out Labor officials or Labor mayors or Labor members of a particular house) while creating what would be for some people an ungodly amount of categories to serve a function that's already pretty well provided for as it is with our member lists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a rule, it's not generally helpful to categorize politicians by individual legislative sessions that they served in. That might be useful in a place where the legislature had a "one and done" term limit — but if there's no such rule, then for long-serving politicians who get reelected to multiple terms in the same office it quickly turns into overlapping category bloat. Political party really is generally the better way to categorize legislators in most cases — membership in a particular legislative session is better handled through lists. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Long overdue cleanup; the current structure is extremely unintuitive. Miracle Pen (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close. There hasn't really been a lot of disagreement here. It's going to take a lot of manual work, and I for one would really like to jump in while it's still fresh in my mind. I will probably open a discussion at WikiProject Australian politics or the Australian noticeboard if/when any ambiguities occur. Frickeg (talk) 01:01, 3 February 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.

Russian Street Categories with 1 Article[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: double merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in each of the categories so they don't aid navigation. There is no overall scheme to categorize every street by municipality that would pass WP:SMALLCAT. Obviously these cities have other streets but I can't find others that are individually notable, at least using online sources in English. I have no objection to recreating this category if additional articles are created later though. (This is modeled after the earlier nomination of Category:Streets in San Antonio, Texas.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Russia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I soubt that the town catregfories will get bigf enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not helpful to navigation at this time. I wouldn't expect this category to fill out very soon on a notability basis. The doesn't indicate potential growth either. Not opposed to recreation should the structure and content radically change. SFB 15:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If more articles about streets in those two cities are written, the cats can always be re-created, but for now they are indeed rather pointless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2015; 14:12 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_1&oldid=1138408592"