Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2[edit]

Category:Vices[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. Delete arguments center around the subjective criteria of this category as per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, which is based in our guidelines on overcategorization. These arguments haven't been rebuffed, and one keep argument even pointed to two contradictory definitions of vice in different countries. Upmerging didn't receive much consideration, and some subcategories such as Category:Pornography don't seem to easily fit into Category:Misconduct. This close does not preclude the creation of a category that categorizes articles on the topic of vice as defined by a specific country's laws or a specific organization, as that would seemingly address the rationale for deletion. If multiple such categories are created, a container category at Category:Vice may be appropriate, but you should probably gain consensus to create that category at a CfD before making it. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As it seems that Category:Sins is going to be deleted, all the same arguments apply to this. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Wikipedia's business. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Read the main article and category content--not just reactions. This can no more be deleted than the Category:Virtue. It is part of human life and discussion. Rename to Category:Vice if necessary. This is not a POV discussion. Hmains (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The main article vice provides non-religious definitions which seem defining. "In the United Kingdom, the term vice is commonly used in law and law enforcement to refer to criminal offenses related to prostitution and pornography. In the United States, the term is also used to refer to crimes related to gambling, alcohol, and drugs." Dimadick (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the US and the UK can't agree on a precise definition, isn't it hopeless to find a universal definition that could be used as the basis of a category? Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no standard definition that will clearly say what is and what is not a vice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's a vice in one place and time isn't at another. As proven by Dimadick's pointing to the non-religious linkage to criminal offenses. Not all pornography is a criminal offense (only someone's POV has placed it into the category "vice"), "hypocrisy" (where is that against the law?), not all prostitution is against the law (may all in England, but not in the US and much of the world - calling it vice therefore is not a universal but an Anglo-partially American view, not representative of the world we're documenting). The category is filled with problematic material showing it's a POV category. Let's see if the "keep" people can prune it of all articles not fitting neatly in vice's non-religious and universally agreed-upon definitions (if any there be) before this debate concludes to prove me wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise: upmerge to Category:Misconduct. While it's not clear in most articles whether the topic really belongs to vice or not, it is at least much clearer that the topics of these articles are generally considered to be some form of misconduct. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 10 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:Works by type[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 to Category:Categories by type. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by Stefanomione in the very final days, this groups every time a creative works category is sub-divided by a type of a type. But "Album types‎" (subcats: Cast recordings‎, Compilation albums...), "Archaeological artefact types‎" (Ancient pottery‎, Archaeological palettes‎... ), "Films by type‎" (4D films, Crowdfunded films...), "Inscriptions by type"‎ (Curse tablets‎, Multilingual texts‎), etc... none of these are "types" in similar ways. So I just don't see the logic or use, anytime a creative work category is divisible by a type of type, in grouping in this way. Perhaps others do, in this case. But I will say that the fact that Wikipedia was able to exist quite well until May 24 of this year without such a grouping, suggests to me that this is more pointless wordplay from this now-banned editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the end, this is just categorization by shared name because the word "type" is so vague. And I don't see what need is met by this category. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Categories by type, as that is where the creator took some of the members from, e.g. [1]. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    though my strong preference would be not to litter Wikipedia with a banned editor's category redirects. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Categories by type per Fayenatic's proposal. A bit too vague for a category of its own, but straight deletion may leave categories without relevant parents. Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the preference is to merge back, fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 6 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:Artefacts[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) 04:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not content with the preexisting Category:Archaeological artifacts, Stefanomione in May 2016 created this parent category -- note the different spelling -- of which Category:Archaeological artifacts is the sole content. Artefact, with an "e" is simply a redirect to Artifact, a disambiguation page that lists many different uses of the word artifact in archeology, culture, etc. He placed Category:Artefacts under his own Category:Historical objects, so it really does seem to mirror the category we already have. BTW, both categories have been added to Historical objects, so we can simply delete. As for Category:Historical objects, that's a broader matter that I don't plan to address at this Cfd, if at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. Oh and Historical objects should be addressed at some point... I was hoping Shawn would volunteer. :-) Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've certainly thought about. I've started removing subcats from Category:Historical objects that were already in preexisting subcats, such as here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 2 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:Doukkala-Abda geography stubs[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: speedy delete as per WP:G8. Normally, I'd relist this, but the template has been retargeted so this meets G8. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A stub category I emptied since the region in question, Doukkala-Abda, was abolished last year. The stubs are now in Category:Casablanca-Settat geography stubs and Category:Marrakesh-Safi geography stubs. Template and category are nominated for deletion together. Cobblet (talk) 20:00, 2 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:Uncategorized fair use images[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, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC. As per this previous CfD, the parent category has uncategorized images in it already. No need for this currently empty category. Not speedy-ing this because this was previously intended to be empty most of the time. ~ RobTalk 19:12, 2 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:Dark Tranquillity[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 17:59, 2 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:Political pressure groups of the United Kingdom[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per Category:Political advocacy groups in England, Category:Political advocacy groups in Ireland and Category:Political advocacy groups by country, the last one also per Category:Conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. I previously thought this would be an WP:ENGVAR issue, but the previous CfD found that it isn't. PanchoS (talk) 13:55, 2 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.

Two more discipline-related 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two more late-stage "discipline"-related categories from Stefanomione, created to follow Category:Disciplines. As outlined here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_5#Category:Disciplines, Category:Disciplines was admittedly created by another editor in a futile effort to save his own Category:Sport disciplines. And here, sure enough, in the first one, we mix Works and Objects by discipline, with such disparate things as Cycle racing by discipline‎ and Scholars and academics by discipline‎.
I'm also nominating the Objects: that one's even more preposterous. It mixes unrelated physical and abstract objects that apparently are so grouped because they are the subject of fields of study. But because everything is studied by at least one academic discipline -- literally the entire physical universe and every abstract concept -- anything that exists physically or abstractly and can have the word "object" applied could be so grouped here, no? As I argued at the original Cfd, it's really a case of WP:SHAREDNAME, for the appearance or possible application of the word "discipline" ... and now "object," too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 2 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:Charities operating in South Africa[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) 05:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Created a better solution Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G7, like the other empty ones in Category:Charities operating in another country. @Rathfelder: However, I think the following structure would be better:
Foreign organizations specifically operating in South Africa won't be restricted to charities. Secondly, the fact that these are foreign organizations is not necessarily defining, if they do operate in South Africa, and do so specifically, then they are still organizations of South Africa, though not (legally) based in South Africa. If a foreign organization has numerous operating areas abroad, we probably shouldn't categorize them at all, as then they are operating internationally. --PanchoS (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • could we say "Organisations in South Africa". The lack of local roots and ownership is, at least in some cases, quite politically significant. "in" is a more neutral word. You are quite right to say not all these organisations are charities. I've begun a category tree Category:Charities operating in another country to see how it works out. What do you think?Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: Certainly, the lack of local roots will be relevant in some cases. But then again, an organisation may have its legal headquarters in South Africa while still lacking local roots. And indeed, "in" is more neutral, but it is so much closer to "based in", so I fear it might be too easily confused. We might also envision a structure like:
I'm not so much a big fan of non-diffusing categories though, because they go against the general principle "as deep as possible". This might be an alternative, though a bit complex:
Most organisations (including charities, political parties, companies etc.) would go down to the lowest level Category:Organisations of South Africa, as they fulfill both criteria. Some would be only based there (but operation abroad), while others would operate there, though being based abroad. This would constitute a massive change to our category structure, but currently is just an idea. --PanchoS (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not rush this. It's potentially a big job. But I think something like it follows on from the abolition of Non-Government Organisations - many of which were exactly the sort of international good-doing organisations I am thinking of. And we need to think of the complications of geography. I don't want a category of organisations based in Yorkshire but operating in Manchester. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 2 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:Transport in China by autonomous region[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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: There's no point in differentiating between first-level country subdivisions of different status all the way through the category tree. All of these are province-level subdivisions, but I guess some will insist on specifying both types. PanchoS (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- some polities are provinces; others autonomous regions. There may be differences in the way they are governed, but three is no overlap. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 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:Faculty of Arts and Science, Markaz[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This whole category tree is messed up (created by a user who is now indef-blocked for socking), but here's a small start. WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk 06:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say none of the categories are required. The two bios that are in the category may not meet notability guidelines. The now blocked COI editor created a whole bunch of articles related to one particular organisation, many of which are not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there will definitely be subsequent nominations. With so many pages placed under multiple categories, though, it's hard to get a picture of just how many articles are even in this tree. Category:Markaz by itself may be appropriate, maybe, but condensing a few of the obviously unnecessary categories will make it much easier for us to figure out if that's the case. ~ RobTalk 15:14, 6 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:Ideal Association for Minority Education[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) 05:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Created by a now blocked sock. We have no article on this association, and I doubt it's defining in any event. ~ RobTalk 06:33, 2 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:Markaz Schools[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) 05:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Created by a now blocked sock. We have no article on Markaz Garden, which is apparently the school "authority" this is meant to categorize for. ~ RobTalk 06:32, 2 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:Roman-era students in Athens[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: keep. Those arguing to keep suggest that this was the equivalent to a specific prestigious university in this time period. This hasn't been refuted. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, these people are defined by their later occupation, not by their studentship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it's also not an alumni category of a particular school. (On the side, I would probably not oppose if someone else would nominate the entire alumni tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In a period when there were no universities, studying in Athens, the centre of philosophical thought would be the nearest anyone would get to an equivalent of a university course. I thus consider that this is analogous to an alumni category. They may have studied with a particular master, but we are unlikely to find enough articles to make a worthwhile alumni category for any of them. If we should do, we can make that a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons listed by Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:20, 2 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:Baseball players from Brisbane[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. Also per multiple CFDs, here[2], here[3], we don't categorize baseball players by city. If a merge is the outcome of this CFD, an upmerge into Australian baseball players should be done for Brisbane also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK for Brisbane, as the member page is already in the other parent Category:Australian baseball players. Oppose for Beijing and Tianjin as they are not only cities but Direct-controlled municipalities of China, part of the hierarchy by province., in this case Category:Chinese_baseball_players_by_province. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- Baseball has a professional league in Australia, with six teams in six major cities. It should be legitimate to have such a category for the home cities of teams, but these only. I consider the decision on the precedents to have been wrong. I suspect that the same considerations apply to Chinese cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if we are going to categorize sportspeople by every city they played in or lived in, it may well lead to too much category clutter in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my earlier comments, because category clutter will remain when merged to Sportspeople by city. Ideally, these city categories should become mostly container categories, holding subcategories of players per team/per club in that city. Apart from that I'm neutral between Baseball players or Sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_2&oldid=1138409964"