Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Category:Research and development in the Soviet Union[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Research and development" (R&D) is business terminology. Research in the Soviet Union however wasn't exactly business-oriented, and the only two articles listed here (two animal breeds) don't have anything to do with business R&D. The category therefore better fits in the Category:Research by country scheme. PanchoS (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creator here. Feel free to bypass this step—I endorse the change. Just make sure not to break any external links.   — C M B J   00:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Are we sure that this cannot be better populated to match the present name? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 1 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.

Subtypes of incest in fiction[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that these categories are small and there are not independent categories called Category:Twincest or Category:Cousincest, I think these new categories should just be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incest between twins gives many more examples of "twincest" in fiction, so the category doesn't seem to be too small. We might rather want to rename the first category per its main article.
    Clearly oppose the latter two merges, as Cousin relationships and marriages are not considered incestuous nor stigmatized in large parts of the world, with even the U.S. being split at this. We might rather want to rename them to Category:Cousin relationships in fiction and Category:Cousin relationships in film. --PanchoS (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept to follow the main article for twins and avoid obscure terminology with all 3. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposed rename would violate two of our policies under WP:TITLE. Firstly distinguishability, which "cousin relationships" seems not to be since its too broad a topic possibly including non-romantic themes. Secondly, "conciseness"; the proposed new title is much longer. Hawaan12 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:TITLE is about article titles, not category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CATNAME says that article title rules apply to cats as well. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, so it does—my apologies. However, I think that if the categories are kept (though I still am not convinced they are worthwhile as separate categories), the proposed names are somewhat of an improvement for two reasons: (1) they could be expanded beyond sexual issues. There's kind of a shortage of content right now; (2) it would avoid more obscure terminology. "Cousin relationships" is not really "much longer" than "cousincest", and anyway it's clearer in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If human societies treated romantic and platonic bonds equally, you'd have a point, but they don't; not in law, nor in culture. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • But that is my point. To broaden the name would thus broaden what is included in the category and make it larger in contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support PanchoS. In the medieval period the Catholic Church outlawed marriage within the 4th degree. Today we are more liberal: in my country, marriage between first cousins is legal though frowned upon. Among peasants in India and Pakistan, it seems in some cases to be usual, in order to keep the family land together. Twincest is a Neologism and needs renaming. I am very dubious whether we should have the cousincest at all. If we do, it should be renamed so as not to refer to incest. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there seems no need for division although reasonable minds can differ on what constitutes incest, as Henry VIII was well aware - both as husband and cuckold. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this in haste on 22 April, merging per the nomination, but I had misread Peterkingiron's opinion as support for the original nomination, so I am re-creating the "Cousincest" categories and re-opening the discussion for further consideration of those two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 20:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification By rename, I meant to "Cousin incest" and the like. This differs from the rename/scope expansion proposed by PanchoS's rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reason provided by PanchoS but oppose alternative rename, if it's no longer about incest then it's not worth categorizing. Note: I don't mind if individual articles are moved to an incest category if the article treats cousin relationship as a form of incest. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either that proposed by RevelationDirect or Pancho. Ninefive6 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but oppose rename to any term involving "incest". Relationships between cousins are not legally considered incest in most parts of the world; some of the states of the US are the main exception. "Cousincest" is a neologism, not a widely accepted term. If these categories are to be kept at all, the word "incest" should be kept out of them entirely. SJK (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say delete (Note: duplicate !vote) -- In my country, marriage between cousins is legal. In south Asia, it appears to be the norm in some communities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In Greece where I live, it largely depends on whether it falls within the prohibited degree of kinship. Marriage between first cousins is illegal. Marriage between second cousins is legal but frowned on by the church (the legalization took place less than fifty years ago), so a religious ceremony is rare. Marriage between third cousins is both legal and religiously permitted. Marriage between fourth cousins or more distant relatives is rarely controversial or much discussed. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Editor-invented terminology for a category of dubious value and accuracy.— TAnthonyTalk 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first thing that comes to mind is Rose in Bloom a book by Louisa May Alcott where the title character (Rose, who we first met in the previous book, Seven Cousins) by the end marries one of her cousins. I can't remember for sure, but I think we go far enough in the future to learn that Rose and her husband have at least one child, so we can imply sex between the two. However since they were married it clearly is not incestuous (since incest is sex where you can not be legally married, a man cannot have incest with his wife, as long as him and his wife properly disclosed their relationship to the authorities). As best I can tell in the 19th-century United States, most states allowed legal marriages to cousins. I know in the Middle Ages there were various marriages among royalty that were too closely related to be allowed but got exemptions. Some of Hapsburg men married their own nieces. My understanding is that in Arab and other cultures in south-west Asia marrying ones cousin is entirely acceptable and in some cases encouraged. We should not at all call this incest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the United States the law varries by state. In Utah, you can marry someone who shares only one great-grandparent but not two if I remember right, but you can marry a full 2nd cousin if you can prove the wife cannot conceive a child. In Michigan I know you cannot marry your cousin, but I am not sure about closer. In New York and some other states marrying your cousin is legal. However marrying cousins, even 3rd cousins as my great-grandparents did, is generally seen as socially icky. However it is not what is meant by the term incest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete - just because somebody added this to the urban dictionary or tv tropes doesn't mean we should categorise by it. - jc37 09:55, 4 June 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:Best Actress Hong Kong Film Award winners[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD: "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic". The list already exists at Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress, there is also a Template:Best Actress HKFA that shows up on every winner's article, so I don't see how this category helps anyone. Timmyshin (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominate the following:

  • Delete unless convincingly demonstrated that this is comparable to Oscars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The grouping is already in a list and doesn't seem defining in the articles I clicked through. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a case of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 5 June 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.

Hauts-de-France[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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The former French regions of Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy were merged in January and assigned a temporary name that now has been superseded by the (IMHO horrible) permanent name "Hauts-de-France", per decision of the regional council. While in theory the name might be overturned by the French Conseil d'Etat, it is expected to be a mere rubberstamp act. In any case, though many people are not happy with it, "Hauts-de-France" is already WP:COMMONNAME in the media and is used on the region's logo, official homepage and publications. Also, the former regions simply don't exist anymore, so merging these categories is no premature move. Even if there remains a tiny possibility of the name being overturned, the categories need to be merged anyway.
I left out Category:History of Picardy and Category:Culture of Picardy as these may continue referring to the eponymous French province. I also left out both Category:People from Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Category:People from Picardy, as they might need further considerations.
Advice to the closing admin: please rename the Nord-Pas-de-Calais categories, while deleting the Picardy ones, as the latter ones are more likely to be recreated at a later point, referring to the historic province and cultural region. --PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per precedent, see this earlier discussion. (Also agree with nom on the disliking of the new name of the region, for what it's worth.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait? The rationale is impeccable but, as the nominator says, this is not yet a "done deal". While unlikely, it is still possible that the new name will not be approved. The same issue also applies to the other amagalmated regions in France and, to my knowledge, at least one of them has not even yet considered a new name yet. It would be a great waste of effort to make all of these changes only to have to revisit the whole process again. The job needs doing, but I suggest it's better to wait until new names have been officially promulgated. Emeraude (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no region "Nord-Pas de-Calais" anymore. If not merging, we may only delete. What is your naming proposal? --PanchoS (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No naming proposal, just a request that we hold off until the new names are finally promulgated officially rather than use what could turn out to be temporary names. (This is unlikely, though not impossible, in this specific case, but Languedoc-Roussillon-Hautes-Pyrenees is not likely to be the final name and the same applies elesewhere.) Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a good idea to hold off for so long. According to the earlier discussion, it will take until October before final approval takes place. In the unlikely event it doesn't get approved it will take many more months to get a new name approved and meanwhile the region will stay at its preliminary name. And even if we don't reach consensus here, it is likely that someone will create new Hauts-de-France region categories from scratch, simply because the region already exists. 18:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
  • Merge per nom. It's not helpful to maintain outdated separate categories for the former regions pending a possible future rename of the current one, especially if it may be anywhere up to another full year before any name change actually takes place — they need to be merged now at whatever name is used now, and if a rename happens in the future then we can speedy-rename them accordingly if and when that time comes. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 20 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:Political advocacy groups in Ireland[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: reverse merge. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:ENGVAR fork. PanchoS (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT reverse merger. The parent seems to be "Political advocacy". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge -- I note that the RoI subcat uses one form, the Northern Ireland one the other. As a matter of principle, we normally split by state, so that only all-Ireland groups should be in these categories. I am not sure that this is an ENGVAR issue, but I am English, not Irish. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 1 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:Sportspeople from Suriname[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: redirected to Category:Surinamese sportspeople. Even if Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Suriname is deemed unnecessary, this wouldn't be its redirect target — the "Surinamese sportspeople" category would. However, this discussion is too outdated, and unlikely to attract much new attention now, for a consensus to emerge on that question — so I'll relist the "by city or town" subcat for a new discussion. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories serve same purpose. Jevansen (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the moment there are only specifications for Sportspeople from Paramaribo based on region or city, but I can easily add the categories for Sportspeople from Livorno, Moengo, Coronie, Wanica, Nieuw Amsterdam, Groningen etc. There are several athletes from all these towns already on Wikipedia, its just a matter of creating the categories for them. (Subzzee (talk) 07:38, 13 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:1991-92 Tercera División[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) 05:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: wrong hyphen. Page moved. Rathfelder (talk) 09:56, 28 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.

Category:Princeton University alumni missing graduation year[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 (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a "remainders" category; these are strongly discouraged in the guidelines. If the year of graduation is missing, they can just sit in the general parent category. It doesn't require a special category. (I'd have no objection to this being a hidden administrative category, but the articles would still need to be re-added to the general parent.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The target is tagged as very large. As a matter of principle, the content of the category should as far as possible be m oved to the decennial subcats. Is there someone who has been working on this split? If so, that person may be moving people with "date missing" to this category, to get them out of the category (s)he is trying to containerise. The category under discussion ought in principle to be a talk-page administrative category, but if someone is actively working on this, merging these back will be counter-productive. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was beginning to do what you describe. Before I got to it, other editors had subcategorized all of the parent category's entries down to (I think) the letter H. Now we're down to L, and it would be somewhat helpful not to merge back the "missing year" ones until we're finished. If it would help, I won't place any further entries in the missing year category for now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had stopped working with this for a few days because there has been a proposal to rename all of the Princeton decade subcats (from Category:Princeton University alumni, 1750–1759 to Category:Princeton University alumni, 1750–59, as an example). I didn't want to continue moving entries that would just have to be moved again. That issue seems to be resolved now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I would add that someone who has recieved a substantial education at an institution counts as an alumni even if they did not finish their coursework and graduate. That said, I think that this whole breakdown of the category is unwise. Some categories are by their nature very large, and that includes alumni of Ivy League Schools. We should not force a breakdown of such categories in arbitary ways, we should accept that such large categories work and leave them in place. Subdivision by recognized sub-unit works, subdivision by year of graduation is a horrible plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 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:Lists of characters in light novels[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) 05:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: High degrees of overlap between light novel and anime/manga character lists make the category redundant. To paste from the discussion here, " Despite being created back in 2013 it was never populated and currently contains only 4 entries, despite there being far more light novel character lists on Wikipedia. This is as the majority are classified under Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. That, the fact that those aforementioned four entries are also listed under the anime/manga character category, and the synonymity and overlap between light novels, manga and anime leads me to believe that it may potentially be redundant". Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:31, 28 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.

Systemically important[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. (non-admin closure) DexDor (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, systemically important is not a defining characteristic of these institutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question: Systemically important is better than "too big to fail". Does the nominator have alternative suggestions to this category? P.S.: Given it is a sub-category of Category:Systemic risk, perhaps it could be re-named "High systemic risk financial institutions" or something similar. Meclee (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose
Just Google SIFI (Systemically important financial institution) and/or gSIFI (Global SIFI). This is a very well established "category" (either the institution is "in" or "out" per various country regulators, and there is wide agreement across countries as to who should be in the gSIFI category. Systemically important institutions break down as follows:
  • Banks (by far the largest risk falls here)
  • Non Banks
    • Insurance Companies
    • Asset Managers (large pools of assets managed by just one or a few individuals, including large, heavily leveraged hedge funds)
    • Systemically important financial market utility - financial market infrastructure providers deemed systemically important by regulators. (critical market makers, clearing, payment systems, assorted entities that are monopolies (or nearly so) in critical financial infrastructure areas, etc.)
Having a "fire" break out in any one of these can disrupt the entire globe's economic stability. I'd argue vehemently that systemically important is a defining characteristic of these institutions, it distinctly sets them apart from others. Strongly advise diligent study of SIFI concepts in USA, UK, EU, and Japan prior to randomly editing anything in this area. Or, consult other experts in Systemic Risk e.g in
Rick (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not imply that the characteristic isn't important, the nomination just says it's not defining, i.e. it's not one of the first things about a particular financial institution that is being mentioned in sources. See WP:NONDEF for further info. For example, it'll take a while to find that Citigroup is a global systemically important bank when you're looking here [[1]] or here [[2]]. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Marcocapelle, more-or-less. A designation as a systemically important financial institution isn't something that's a defining characteristic of these banks. ~ RobTalk 00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a status that will change over time, so it's not great for categorization purposes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. The characteristic of being a financial institution "too big to fail" is certainly an important attribute, and en.wp should indeed cover that. However, the category system is too crude a tool to do that effectively or without being misleading. The "too big to fail"/"systemically important" is not a permanent characteristic ... rather it is one applied a particular time by a particular regulator. Different regulators at difft times may choose a difft set. A list can convey these nuances and attributions and historical diffrences much more effectively than a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Disagree with nominator, "systematically important" (aka too big to fail) is defining. Both have good parent articles providing a good definition, and while things can change, these things are not fast-changing. Agree independently with listifying both. A list has many advantages, including notes on years the definition applies, noting that these things change from decade to decade. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Fayenatic london appear to argue "delete because a list does the job better". However, as per my reading of WP:CLN, it is not enough that the list does it "better", but the category's functionality must be entirely redundant, before it should be deleted. Perhaps this is the case? I don't see that assertion being made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: my opposition is on a rather different basis. It is that the category misleads readers by appearing to assert that this is a permanent attribute of the bank, whereas the reality is of an attribute applied in one jurisdiction at a particular time. The category misleads because it cannot convey these crucial distinctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the participants arguing for keeping these have not answered the objections made on grounds of Wikipedia policy. The existing lists do the job better, and moreover permit a global perspective. Note: I have copied some parents of the nominated categories onto certain member articles or other parent categories where I thought this would be useful. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic, I don't follow "objections made on grounds of Wikipedia policy". what specifically are you referring to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: to the section on "defining" in WP:OCAT. The topic is certainly notable, but that doesn't make it defining for categorisation. The list List of systemically important banks shows that various banks are already "former G-SIBs"; and Systemically_important_financial_institution#Global_Systemically_Important_Insurers says that Assicurazioni Generali is no longer on that list. As systemic importance is in some cases a temporary status, it is not defining. – Fayenatic London 06:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Fayenatic london. I get it, a category can't catch that a bank is too big to fail in a specific time and place, a category will bottom-label the bank as such without context.
Listify and Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about listifying: the existing lists ought to be sufficient already. @ArtZ72: you added ABN AMRO to the first category in Oct 2015 ([3]) without stating a justification. It is not currently mentioned in the List of systemically important banks, nor was it mentioned there at that date ([4]). Can you remember why you added that page into that category? The other two that you added shortly before (Lloyds, China Construction Bank) were justifiable.([5]) – Fayenatic London 12:40, 12 July 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.
SmokeyJoe, I don't think listification is needed (per FL's comment). I've taken a off-wiki list of the articles in these categories and will do some checking against the lists, but my experience with listifying has been that it's common to find that anything in the category that is not already in the list has nothing in the article that justifies it's inclusion in the category/list (e.g. as FL found). DexDor (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following organisations were in the categories, are not in the lists (under these exact names) and don't (afaics) contain the info that would be needed to add them to a list: ABN AMRO (see FL's comment above), The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Groupe BPCE, HSBC Bank (Turkey), Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Banco Santander. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Palestine[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/merge/delete as per nom. (non-admin closure)~ RobTalk 00:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More renames
Nominator's rationale: rename, to harmonize with parent Category:State of Palestine. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. The two last categories are nominated to be deleted because the only content is an article in Israel; if not deleted they may be renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, bringing these into line with the parent Category:State of Palestine and its main article State of Palestine. --PanchoS (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am unconvinced by the need to rename the article, but since it has happened the categories should follow. However, I have a concern over this: many Palestinian organisations lay claim to the territory of Israel. It is important that the headnote of all categories clearly directs that it refers only to Gaza and the West Bank, and not to the pre-1967 State of Israel. We must protect WP against anti-Zionist mission creep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is more problematic with using just "Palestine", which is more ambigous. By the way State of Palestine is only in 40% of West Bank, the rest is only claimed and Gaza is de-facto ruled by Hamas Authority in Gaza and also claimed by State of Palestine. One day we need to create category tree for Gaza as well (unless Hamas unifies with State of Palestine, which i doubt may happen).GreyShark (dibra) 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. SJK (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - though we need to make clear Mandatory Palestine categories are properly distinct (concerning Banking in Palestine); Delete cats Oil fields in Palestine and Petroleum in Palestine, since are factually empty (Meged field is clearly in Israel).GreyShark (dibra) 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking into some categories, it appears that some sports competitions are listed in early 2000s, when State of Palestine was yet just declarational. We should be using Palestinian National Authority between 1994 to 2012 and only 2013-onward to use State of Palestine, as it was accepted by Ramallah government and UN authorities, without going into anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Greyshark09: I don't think any of the states which voted for UN GA Resolution 67/19 saw themselves as creating a state but rather as recognizing a state which already existed (the majority of the states voting for the resolution already recognized the State of Palestine prior to it, and indeed most already had for several or even many years) – so if the State of Palestine exists right now, then whenever the State of Palestine began to exist, it certainly didn't begin to exist on the 29 November 2012. The only legally plausible positions are that the State of Palestine already existed prior to 2012, or else that it doesn't exist now and never has (which is the official Israeli position). If we follow the declarative theory of statehood (which is the mainstream position in international law), then the State of Palestine either meets the Montevideo convention criteria for statehood or it doesn't; nothing happened at the end of 2012 to alter this judgement since UN GA resolutions are irrelevant to the Montevideo convention criteria. Even, if we instead adopt the constitutive theory of statehood, to my knowledge no account of the constitutive theory of statehood has ever considered UN GA resolutions as a decisive factor – under the constitutive theory, if the State of Palestine had enough international recognition to exist on 29 Nov 2012, it almost certainly also had enough recognition to exist on the 28 Nov 2012; and conversely, if it didn't have enough recognition to exist on 28 Nov 2012, it arguably doesn't have enough recognition to exist today either. To view that UN GA resolution as decisive on this issue is to give the UN General Assembly far more authority under international law than it actually has under the UN Charter. So, your suggested temporal division is legally nonsensical. The State of Palestine claims to have existed since 15 November 1988; in the absence of any better date, I think we should go with its own claimed beginning. When another state recognizes the State of Palestine, arguably they are recognizing the same state which was declared to exist in 1988; the people whom they are recognizing as the official representatives of that state are in organizational continuity with the people who made the 1988 declaration. To legally recognize the State of Palestine is to choose to legally accept its own narrative of existence. UN GA 67/19 (and also UN GA 43/177) can also be seen as legal acceptance of the State of Palestine's self-narrative, at least on the part of the states which voted for those resolutions. SJK (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The upgrade of Palestine status on 29 November 2012 is not by any means sufficient to be the inauguration of the state; similar to 29 November 1947 partition plan acceptance by UN in case of Israel. The de-facto existence of Palestine as a state (with limited recognition and limited sovereignity of course) is the January 2013 decree by President Mahmud Abbas to transform and rename all Palestinian Authority institutions to State of Palestine institutions - this was a declarational act by which the state came into actual being in reality; a much more important event than the purely declarational announcement of Arafat on behalf of PLO in 1988 in Tunisia. Later in 2013, the transition order within the UN institutions and by ISO essentially recognized Abbas' decree and thus the state can count its days from January 2013. The resignation of Abbas from PLO leadership in 2015 strengthened this, making the State of Palestine essentially the only body to be involved in decision making and rule and in shortly later in September 2015 Palestinian flag was raised at the UN headquarters, implying its statehood. In my humble opinion of course.GreyShark (dibra) 13:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain what you are saying in terms of the international law of statehood? The generally accepted criteria for the existence of a state are the Montevideo convention criteria ("(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states") – what does issuing a decree to rename PA institutions to State of Palestine institutions have to do with this? The Israeli position is that State of Palestine doesn't meet those criteria and never has, the Palestinian position is that it does – but, if the Palestinian position is correct, I don't see how that decree, or the raising of a flag at the UN, can be decisive in changing the determination of whether a state meets those criteria. I think a different interpretation of Abbas' 2013 decree is – there has never been a clear distinction between PLO institutions, State of Palestine institutions, and PA institutions – they've always functioned as different names for the same group people. Back in the 2000s, the 1990s, many states already recognised the State of Palestine (e.g. most of the Arab and Muslim states already did). Who did they receive as representatives of the State of Palestine? Representatives of the PA–because "PA" and "State of Palestine" have always been two different names for the same group of people. The only reason why the PA ever existed was as a compromise with Israel – Israel wasn't willing to recognise Palestine as a State, but was willing to recognise an "Authority", and the Palestinian side decided to go along with Israel in this. I think they always considered the PA to be essentially the same thing as the State of Palestine, they were just keeping quiet about that belief in order to preserve relationships (and commitments they'd signed) with Israel and the US. However, the relationship has now broken down, and their hope of getting what they want through negotiations has receded, to the point that they don't feel any interest in going along with Israel and the US any more, so now they've declared the PA institutions to be the State of Palestine. But I think from their viewpoint, this is just proclaiming publically what they've always believed privately, and even declared publicly in friendly fora (such as the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, etc). In other words, while it was an important step in diplomatic terms, I don't think it made much of a difference in legal terms. (In any event, neither of us has a reliable source to answer the question of when did the State of Palestine begin to exist?, just our own WP:OR personal interpretations of the situation – so from a Wikipedia policy-based perspective we are kind of stuck.) SJK (talk) 23:04, 6 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:Condorito[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) 19:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 28 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.

Category:Star Parivaar Awards[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) 05:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has only one article "Star Parivaar Awards" which can be upmerged to Category:Indian television awards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:34, 28 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.

Category:Indo-European-speaking peoples[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. If you have a group of articles you want categorized in this category, then renominate with a specific list of subcategories and articles that belong here. Until there's a demonstrated need with specific articles, it's unlikely there will be consensus to restore this. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted last year after discussion. But there is Category:Ethnic groups by language family which is needed development or complete deletion. And I think development will be better, as there are plenty categories in Category:Ethnic groups, and ethnic groups are defined by language mostly. There is strange Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by language family where are subgroups of language families, but not proper language families. There are academic comparative studies on folk cultures, folklore and these studies use language families terms. I propose "Indo-European-speaking peoples" because it helps to avoid arguments like "They are not "real Indo-European people" as they began to speak an Indo-European language after they were colonized or assimilated". Cathry (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC) By the way deleted category is present in 49 other wikipedies. Cathry (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:, @Peterkingiron:, @Carlossuarez46:, @Pack Lambert:, @Johnbod:.

  • Yes, and even Category:Germanic folklore that you apparently are in need of. But as is, it's hardly about Germanic folklore at all, it's mainly about folklore in various separate countries. With two exceptions: dwarves and elves are common legendary creatures, but that's really a thin commonality. However, if you have many more articles that could fill up categories like Category:Common folklore of Germanic-speaking peoples, please go ahead with it. In the end it is about articles, not about container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to create quick access to articles about ethnic groups categorized by language families. Now, we have etnic groups and cultures categorized by location, it is not ideal too. Category:Asian culture and Category:Ethnic groups in Asia does not mean there is some monolithic Asian culture or ethnicity with unique characteristics, this category is collection of articles and categories about cultures native to Asia. About folklore: such creatures as elves are present in every mythology, but it is subject of Indo-European studies, if there are some particular similarities between germanic Elf, spanich (and Latino-American) Duende (mythology) and Indian Gandharvas. Cathry (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's an article with an overview of all Indo-European ethnic groups and when it's based on academic sources regarding Indo-European studies, then it should be alright to classify the article in this category. If that is not a sufficient answer, it will be more helpful when you first specify which article(s) this discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I really want to help you identifying a right category for an overview article about Indo-European ethnic groups and aspects of their folk culture that you mentioned before, and I still think that Category:Indo-European could potentially well do the job, but I'm meanwhile getting the impression that you don't have an article like that and that makes this to a non-discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create the Articles First Let's put the horse before the cart. Create the awesome article, and then we can better understand the need for a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main need, as for me, is to categorize existing categories and articles with parent category. So one new article will not help probably. And I have problems with English grammar, what article I can create? Cathry (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then this discussion can be closed as 'no action required'. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that 'no action required'? Cathry (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said you weren't going to write articles, so they don't need to be categorized either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have existing articles and categories. Cathry (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My suggestion does not seem to have moved us closer to consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is just an example of "if you build it they will come". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create as a container category to parent Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Hittite, Iranian, and some Indian language categories, including Sanskrit. The link was discovered over 200 years ago, when someone noticed similarities between Classical Latin and Greek on the one hand and Sanskrit on the other. This is to some extent covered in Europe by the European category mentioned, but that brings in unrelated languages including Finno-Ugric and Basque. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would Category:Indo-European speaking peoples include the Navajo since the vast majority of them speak English? The Cherokee since an even larger percentage speak English. Is Gullah an Indo-European language. What of the other Creole languages?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it must include Americans. So Navajo will be there as Americans, but as Navajo they will be in Category:Na-Dene-speaking peoples or Na-Dene peoples. It seems Creole languages are not included in Indo-European languages, but constitute a separate group in linguistics. Cathry (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is confusing peoples with nationalities. When we look at Germanic peoples (e.g. Swabians), they lost their meaning in the course of the Middle Ages, with the disappearance of the respective stem duchies, while on the other hand nationalities gradually started to emerge in the late Middle Ages; Americans is obviously a nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • What relation have duchies to peoples? Duchies could appear and vanish hundred times per century. English are modern Germanic people (or Germanic-speaking) as well as Franks were medieval Germanic people. Or do you think Franks have some specific "pure Germanic blood"? No, they emerged from earlier Germanic, Celtic and other Indo-European and Paleo-Indo-European peoples, as well as English. I only can mention that in urbanized modern society ethnic group is rather historical term, but not every Indo-European people live in urbanized First World society, and our article not only about newest time. Americans have common folklore, culture, cuisine traditions, they are people, not only a nationality. Cathry (talk) 06:42, 11 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:Labor-related political violence in the United 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: rename as nominated. No consensus for the alternative proposed, but there is a consensus that the category should be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this context, violence is violence. I don't see a good reason to call it "political" violence, especially since the category includes ALL "labor-related" violence, not just cases where police or troops were sent in by political office-holders (as alluded to in the head note. There could be a sub-cat for such interventions, but it would have a very different name and parents.) [Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}] Cgingold (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Anti-union violence in the United States per main article Anti-union violence in the United States.
Political violence includes acts of violence by governments, but also politically motivated violent acts by regular people. Regarding the listed articles it however seems we're better off being more specific, with Category:Labor disputes in the United States serving as a catch-all category for those articles that don't fit in this one or in Category:Labor-related riots in the United States. --PanchoS (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat Supportive Support removing "political" from the name be it with the original or the alt rename. I'm not certain this category is workable though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT per PanchoS Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have mixed feelings about the alternate proposal to rename to "Anti-union violence". I'm sympathetic in a general way, but I'm not sure it makes good sense in terms of how we use Categories. I think it would be problematic because, even when the primary aggressor is clearly the company or police, national guard, etc., in many (if not most) cases there is also a certain amount of violence on the part of the union folks, even if it's a matter of self-defense. In short, it might be best to retain the broader term "Labor-related violence", which includes the entire spectrum. Cgingold (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: I've discovered that there is also a Category:Union violence, which appears to have been created to single out pro-union violence. This also seems problematic, for the same basic reason I outlined above. I'd like to hear what other editors think about all of this. Come to think of it, I'm gonna post a note at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour asking for more input. Cgingold (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems an extremely problematic, WP:ORy type category. What exactly counts as labor-related violence? Any strike? Any strike-breaking? According to what source? Are related laws & court cases relevant? This category seems to be vague and asking for trouble. SnowFire (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, SnowFire. Did you even take the time to look at the articles in the category? ALL of them deal with episodes that included substantial violence. It is NOT being used for any and all strike-related articles, which are dealt with in the categories for labor disputes. In terms of its actual use -- which is what really matters -- this category has NOT been in the least problematic. In short, your concerns are entirely unfounded, so I sincerely hope you'll reconsider your position on the category. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I came to this article because I saw that this category was being added to the likes of court cases related to violence involved with unions. I'll grant that there may be a legitimate category somewhere here, but in general I'm suspicious of "Violence related to X" categories, which can often be used to send unsubtle messages. e.g. imagine a "Violence committed by Muslims" category, a "Violence committed by African-Americans," etc. It can be used pretty easily to push a POV that "violence and FOO have something to do with each other." I'd rather there be more specific categories: Strikebreaking in the United States for the likes of Pinkerton (detective agency), for example. The subcategory Category:Labor-related riots in the United States looks fine, for example. Violence is too broad a catch-all. SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to drop political. Not all of this violence is by definition anti-union.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 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:Politically motivated violence against African Americans[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) 05:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This recently-created, sparsely populated category (1 article) is fundamentally duplicative of Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans. It even resuses verbatim the head note for that category -- with the sole difference being the insertion of the words "while also motivated for political reasons". I submit that is a distinction that is too subtle to apply in any meaningful way. In short, this category is both unneeded and unworkable. Cgingold (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Note: Category creator not notified of CFD - user account has been blocked] Cgingold (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Too much subtlety in categorisation is a mistake.Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Racist hate crimes are often enough meant to be political statements, too. If an act of political violence however wasn't racially motivated at all, then it is not defining whether the victims are African Americans or not. --PanchoS (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The motives aren't always known and sometimes they are multiple ones. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that too much subtlety in categorisation is not a good thing. In any case it should be deleted as it was created by a sock, ie a blocked editor. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • question This category has one article. Were other articles cleaned out prior to this nomination? Hard to judge anything with just one article.Hmains (talk) 02:18, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_28&oldid=1091637839"