Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18

[edit]

Eastern Orthodox Christians executed for refusing to convert to Catholicism

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per SmallCat. Only 1 entry. Unlikely to have much scope for enlargement. The single entry possibly does not meet the criteria of the category itself as the victim seems have have been a victim of homicidal mania or politically motivated persecution rather than religious persecution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 18 April 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.

Film directors by continent

[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 as originally nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Alternative added 18/4/16 on relisting:


Nominator's rationale: The sub-categories of Category:Film directors by continent are inconsistent. There is Category:Europea‎n film directors, then the 4 above. So far I can see from the conventional format for an occupation-by-continent category is as per nationalities: fooian fooers This nom would standardise the film directors on that format.
I am not very sure of the merits of occupation-by-continent categories, but since there are are about a dozen other occupation-by-continent categories, please can consideration of a purge be left to a wider discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the rename would make things more consistent but at the same time it doesn't sound right, suggesting that "African", "Asian" etc. are (super)nationalities which they aren't. With European this problem is less obvious as Europe is slowly converging to a unity. I wouldn't mind deleting this type of categories for this reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: I don't find that very persuasive. I'm pretty sure that most of our readers understand that Africa, Asia, N. America etc are continents rather than countries. And I don't see why different types of entity need different naming conventions ... but if you do do want a distinctive naming format, the solution is to adopt it rather than delete the categories.
      Whatever the format, there is no point in having two different formats for the same type of category. However, if you prefer to standardise in the other direction, why not add an "option B" to this nomination, changing all the other occupation-by-continent categories to fooers-from-boo? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having parent-only categories for continents, but renaming the categories to Fooian film directors would make it sound to me as though they were about Fooian films, not Fooian directors. Counter-propose that, if continental parent categories are kept, Category:European film directors be renamed to Category:Film directors from Europe. Pegship (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some of these terms are too often used not for people from the continent to make the targets too ambiguous. Also the targets make it ambiguous if the director or film is being modified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "from" categories are traditionally (and purposefully) vague as to whether they refer to place of birth or residence. The important thing with a film director will be where they operate. An Englishman operating in Hollywood should be in an American category. His ethnic origin can be dealt with by having him in people from England (etc). I guess that the Asian category has a large element of Bollywood and the African one of the Nigerian Nollywood. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want your result for a British national, they should be Directors of American films, etc. A citizen and national of the UK who makes his films in California is not an American. A citizen and national of Burman who makes his films in Bombay is not Indian. This is not about ethnicity, it is about nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The meaning of both names is identical, but the new name is more consistent with other categories of this nature. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding the alternative option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom All the sub-catgeories use the XXXX film directors format so the nomination is the best way to achieve consistency. I don't accept the argument that the renmame could cause confusion since articles are categorized using the sub-categories anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron made an interesting comment, implying that this whole tree has been set up wrongly. It shouldn't be occupation x nationality (trivial intersection) but occupation x country of occupation (non-trivial intersection). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 29 April 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.

Ideological caucus membership 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Membership in an ideological caucus isn't a defining characteristic. Also, membership in these groups can be fluid and difficult to pin down. The Freedom Caucus for instance, doesn't release a full roster, and Pew Research had to do quite a bit of its own research to pin down members, and even then couldn't verify some of the suspected. I suppose that at a minimum, the categories should be renamed to add "members" at the end. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting Membership in an ideological caucus most certainly is defining for a politician. As a matter of fact, the case is so self-evident that to suggest otherwise is beyond surreal. Lekoren (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that membership is temporary, since when a member retires or is defeated for reelection, they're no longer members. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as temporary cat, and as akin to categorizing on issues - are we going to categorize politicians by each and every group that they belong to, support them, donate to them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think categorization by political party is fine, but categorization by caucus or sub-party group should probably be avoided for the reasons mentioned above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are easily formed and easily disbanded groups. What next, will we have categories for Loco-focos from 1830s New York? Today (or in the case of Bentivolio during his one term which is past) these are members of the Liberty Caucus, but if Amash remains in office another 5 years, he may be in a different group. This is not defining enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 8 May 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:ExxonMobil controversies

[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: allow both categories to exist. Users should put articles about controversies in Category:ExxonMobil controversies. Presumably Category:ExxonMobil controversies will be a subcategory of Category:ExxonMobil history. I have done my best to re-populate Category:ExxonMobil controversies appropriately, but it probably could use more work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was moved by User:HughD without any discussion. Later they explained the move at their talk page [[1]]. As this move is controversial and was made without any discussion (even without WP:CFDS which is the procedure uncontroversial moves, I listed it here for the broader discussion. Beagel (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a nominator I looking for one of the two results:
Beagel (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFDS is not the procedure for non-controversial moves, it is a procedure available to editors for moves which satisfy one or more of the WP:CFDS#Speedy criteria. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, more reasons why this move had to be discuss here at the first place instead of moving it without any discussion at all. Beagel (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you seek a community consensus regarding the appropriate use of all "...controversy" categories, or all "...controversy" categories of articles on corporations, please consider a separate, centralized discussion for your ideas. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CFD is the right place for that kind of discussion. And you did not explained how ExxonMobil "controversies" are different from Royal Dutch Shell "controversies" to justify removing one but keeping another. Lets the community discuss the issue in the best possible way. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note The category has already been moved (with a redirect) to the target category. RevelationDirect (talk)
  • Background (as Category Creator) The categorization of corporations is a difficult terrain between anti-corporate activists and over-exuberant employees. Sure, we have WP:NPOV but that's just a rumor in this topic area. "Controversies" categories was an imperfect way to separate the two sides so that pro-company editors couldn't purge the contents because they weren't on the official corporate histories. I actually don't have a strong opinion on this rename/scope change for now so I'll defer to other editors on this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note Respectfully request quick close with no action on this ill-formed proposal, as Category:ExxonMobil history has been populated by numerous ExxonMobil history articles. Category:ExxonMobil controversies has not been removed, it has been redirected; articles may be included in more than one category, and concerned colleagues may add articles to Category:ExxonMobil controversies as appropriate. Colleagues who are inclined to populate a "controversies" category are respectfully reminded that "controversy" on Wikipedia refers to noteworthy differences of opinions between actors in noteworthy reliable sources, it does not refer generically to content which may be perceived by some as unflattering or unfavorable to a subject. A "controversies" category is non-neutral as the category for the entire history of a subject. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil has a long history, and that history has been forked into many dozens of articles in our project. For example, oil spills (Category:ExxonMobil oil spills, a sub-category of Category:ExxonMobil history) are historical events, they are not "controversies." While a small portion of the content of some of the articles currently in Category:ExxonMobil history may summarize a particular controversial aspect of their topic, regarding the interpretation of the historical facts and events, the articles in Category:ExxonMobil history are not "controversy articles" in the Wikipedia sense, as for example Creation–evolution controversy. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that Category:ExxonMobil controversies could be restored? But why in this case you moved (renamed) it instead of creating just a new category? Beagel (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, what articles would you propose as appropriate for inclusion in Category:ExxonMobil controversies? Hugh (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. ExxonMobil climate change controversy. Beagel (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that, this is just example to answer your question. That does not mean that I am definitely against if there is a decision to rename or remove all "critics" and "controversies" categories like explained above. Beagel (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @HughD:, you mentioned above that this move met the requirements of a speedy move. Which criteria? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not say WP:CFDS criteria were met. Hugh (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read your comments here and on your talk page and I appear to have misread them. You felt this was a non-controversial article rename/change of scope that did not fit a speedy criteria. (If I still got that wrong, please let me know.) RevelationDirect (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the restoration of the "controversies" category meets the requirements for a speedy change, as the move to "history" was a controversial change made without discussion. Hugh's edits to add things which might fit in "history" by not in "controversies" shouldn't be a bar to restoring the status quo ante. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, thank you for your comment. I support your suggestion. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 4 May 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:Kurdish separatism in Iraq

[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 Category:Kurdish secession in Iraq to Category:Kurdish separatism in Iraq. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are basically about the same thing. Either title would work. Charles Essie (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while secession is a form of separatism, the vice versa is not always correct. Current Kurdish Autonomy is a form of separatism, but it has not become independent yet.GreyShark (dibra) 07:46, 19 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18&oldid=1074815876"