Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 4

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

September 4[edit]

Category:Organizations based in the Netherlands[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/rename. The "s" spelling clearly has priority in time here. I will add category redirects to prevent the problem from developing again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I think the creator just missed the presence of the older category tree. Since the Netherlands is not primarily an English speaking country, I don't care if we use "Z" or "S" but the latter is larger and more developed.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NoteNotified Knuand as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands. – RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I don't have a clear preference between an 's' and 'z' either. Officially Dutch people learn English English at school, that may have been the reason why the categorization in WP started with an 's'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the s-spelling category predates the z-spelling category. Tim! (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The established consensus has been that European categories should follow British English spelling, since that's the dialect that English speakers in those countries are likely to learn and speak — and even more importantly, the "s" categories were already in place, making the "z" categories duplicates. I'd suggest that the "z" categories should, however, be maintained as {{categoryredirect}}s to catch future filing errors and prevent somebody from recreating them again in the future. In actual fact, the z categories for Drenthe, Friesland and Gelderland were completely empty, so I've already redirected them to the existing s categories (the other alternative would have been immediate speedy deletion as empty categories.) I left alone the ones that weren't empty, however, and I do want to clarify that my action was not meant to forestall any continued discussion of whether we should just delete the z categories instead of keeping them as redirects. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge because this is clearly an attempt to say British English is right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As the Netherlands is a European country, the Dutch are far more likely to use English spelling, rather than American. It is not a question of right or wrong or priority, but which is more likely to be culturally appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 12 September 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.

Cardiovascular disease deaths[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) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per outcome of this discussion. This nomination will be extended to other states and countries if it gets consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in Principle This is such a common cause of death it doesn't seem defining. Based on my medical history, this or other heart issues will likely be my end as well so I'm not unsympathetic here. I think a lot of the death categories have been overly influenced by obituary articles which aren't always reliable or balanced biographies. That being said, deaths in Michigan are no more or less notable but I understand even tagging/nominating whole trees can be a burden so I'm OK with this phased-in nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should avoid most death by specific type of disease categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per summary of previous deletion. We should not be categorising deaths like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while these are likely to be non-controversial given that cardiovascular disease is (a) common, (b) commonly - but not always - a "final straw" type disease that kills people already hobbled by other ailments, and (c) unremarkable - i.e., no-one's death is really notable because of this cause. However, the arguments in the prior discussion and those above mine here are easily read as deleting all disease deaths; let's see how the various AIDS-related death categories fare when (a) it's not common, (b) it often strikes people other than in older age, and (c) often, for celebrities, is quite remarkable - indeed for some (Ryan White and Elizabeth Glaser), the disease and their impending deaths leading to activism on behalf of people with AIDS, may be larger part of their notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not think we need to categorise causes of death unless they are very unusual or otherwise notable. Cardiovascular disease is a very common cause of death; hence NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 12 September 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:Cornish-speaking people[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. — ξxplicit 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Containerize. For example we know from Cornish-language writers and Cornish-language activists that they are Cornish-speaking and so these are decent subcategories, and we may well add e.g. Cornish-language singers and actors in Cornish-language television as other child categories with people of whom we are sure that they were users of the Cornish language as a defining characteristic. But for all people that can't be put in child categories like these, speaking Cornish is merely accidental, not defining. By the way, many articles in this category are also in one of the child categories, already. Also by the way, this nomination is very similar as the one for Welsh-speaking people, to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people (open); WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Category:Welsh-speaking people (closed as containerize, but reopened as part of the Scottish Gaelic discussion); WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 10#Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople (open)
  • Comment do all the writers speak Cornish? Or do they only read/write Cornish? Should this instead by Cornish users (and so on for all language categories)? Also, if these speak this language, do they actually perform in this language? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a very good question and I don't have an answer to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize per nom. The level of use of this minority language is already hard to verify. We don't need unsourced categories of speakers. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, similarly to the recent discussion about speakers of Welsh. There is no correlation that all Cornish people speak Cornish (in fact far, far smaller proportion speak Cornish than the percentage of Welsh people that speak Welsh). Because Cornish is an extreme minority language with a tiny number of speakers, I would contend that anyone who speaks Cornish with a degree of fluency is defined by this. The proponents of these CfD discussions seem to be equating minority languages with major languages (it goes without saying that all French people speak French so a Category:French speakers would indeed be of no use). Sionk (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize based on previous discussion about Welsh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a ludicrous idea, even sillier than the proposal to containerize Welsh-speaking people, since many Cornish speakers are notable purely for their skills in speaking Cornish. Deb (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not have a general category, rather than shoe-horning them into contrived ones. The numbers of notable Cornish speakers is small, which you must admit makes them unusual and distinct for their language skills. Sionk (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "even sillier than the proposal to containerize Welsh-speaking people" – But that's precisely what the consensus arrived at to do (a discussion I've reopened at the Scottish Gaelic-related CfD; these "-speaking people" categories should be deleted in favor of the "-language occupations" equivalents).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The ability to speak Cornish is highly likely to be defining to a person in that category. Though I don't understand why it needs to be defining to a person; we have the category LGBT people, and that doesn't need to be defining, just that the person has stated their sexuality. We have multiple articles of people who are not defined by the categories that they are placed in. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people by languages spoken is a bad idea. How would Category:English-speaking people fare? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the difference was explained earlier in the discussion. It appear that only people familiar with the issue of minority languages can truly understand the importance of this. Deb (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not serious when you say Cornish is comparable with Spanish or Japanese?! No-one would ever suggest (or support) a Category:Spanish-speaking people! Sionk (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "Cornish is comparable with Spanish or Japanese"; you're coming up with those words, putting them in my mouth, and then asking me if I'm serious about it. That's a straw man. I'm not even sure what you mean by "comparable", anyway. They can certainly be compared in various ways; both are Indo-European languages from Western Europe, for example, and both, as topics here, are subject equally to the exact same guidelines and policies. I know no one would support such a category for less obscure languages that aren't the subject of activism that raises WP:NOT#ADVOCACY concerns. We shouldn't have such categories for those that do, especially when the rationale for them appears to be the very advocacy that is against policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:29, 16 September 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:1912 establishments in French Morocco[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. — ξxplicit 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; simply adding the French colonial empire categories to the existing Morocco category should be sufficient. Note also that French Morocco redirects to French protectorate in Morocco. Tim! (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is similar to an earlier discussion about Birma, about one country with two governments. Here in Morocco, while there were two protectorates at the time (a French and a Spanish one), it was considered to be one country nevertheless, e.g. because it kept to have one sultan. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The decision on Burma was wrong, wrong, wrong. They ignore the fact that there were two Burmas for longer than there were two Germanies. There were two Moroccos. These nominatiions consistently ignore reality. The fact of the matter is that not all of Morocco was under French control. A significant portion of it was under Spanish control. So we can not treat French Morocco as coterminous with Morocco. It would be nice if people came to understand the actual history of a place before rushing in head long with claims about how categorization should work that will not work with the actual real facts on the ground.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think here in Morocco we have an even stronger case for merging than in Burma, since History of Morocco says:
The treaties did not legally deprive Morocco of its status as a sovereign state, and the sultan remained the country's leader. In practice, the sultan had no real power and the country was ruled by a colonial administration.
... whereas the second of the treaties discussed here is between France and Spain. So Morocco as a whole remained a sovereign state despite the establishment of a French and Spanish protectorate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morocco has been a unified country under the Alaouite dynasty since the 17th century, there is no reason to restrict it to "today". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 9 September 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.

Deletion review regarding awards categories[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: deletion review has been closed. The result was "relist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion the proposal is being made to overturn the delete of Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands and other awards categories. You are welcome to join in this deletion review discussion. As several editors joined in the CfD discussion, and in other similar awards discussions, it was suggested to post a note about this review discussion here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 4 September 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_September_4&oldid=1074815811"