Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]

Category:Educational organisations in Germany[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 the first 7 listed, and rename:
– Fayenatic London 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose restoring original title of:
  • Propose confirming the already restored original title of:
Nominator's rationale: The first seven categories were moved per, unfortunately unopposed, WP:CFD/S, though not falling in the scope of WP:C2C. Following earlier speedy moves of Category:Civic and political organizations of Germany, Category:Political organizations in Germany, Category:Human rights organizations in Germany, Category:Student organizations in Germany, Category:Arts organisations based in Germany, Category:Journalism organisations based in Germany and many more, these controversial moves try to establish WP:ENGVAR for Germany, while it before wasn't established nor "overwhelmingly used" at all.
Upset by this abuse of CFD/S, I figured several more categories had been speedy moved without being tagged and listed, reverting the latter three categories to the "z" variant. I however figured out that my assessment was wrong, and at least the procedure has been followed. However, those categories should have never been renamed without discussion, so I'm now asking to confirm the original name of these three. My apologies for my hasty and procedurally subpar reaction, but this proper discussion is supposed to remedy a number of improper moves.
Now, we might come up with a general consensus on using the internationally dominant spelling "organizations" (which also happens to be recommended by the Oxford English Dictionary, see -ize), or the British English variant "organisation" for Germany-related categories. If we however don't come up with a consensus, I'd ask to restore the previous state, as all of these moves were (unintended or not) in breach of our policy. --PanchoS (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Walter Görlitz: Are they? Why? And how do you know?
    Actually, the contrary seems true. Like it or not, while since the aftermath of WWII, Germany still has quite close bonds to the U.S., it barely has any relation to the UK. And while in the U.K. both spelling variants coexist, in the U.S. the -ize form clearly prevails.
    For a very rough quantitative idea, Google gives just 7,600 results for the more colloquial British English "organisation -organization +germany" vs. 10,700 results for the Oxford spelling ("organization -organisation +germany") which happens to be taught in German schools and was (IMHO correctly) described by Good Olfactory here as the older, more "original" English. --PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes they are. Most of my German relatives learn British English although they are not unfamiliar with American English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Then please read -ize. "organization" is no Americanism, but perfect British English. Anyway, this is basically not about which spelling is the "right" one but about reverting a speedy move that violated WP:CFD/S rules and the general rule per WP:ENGVAR] that spelling variants are to be retained unless there is consensus, so may never be fast-tracked. --PanchoS (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ways of spelling in English. Mr. Webster gave us the American spelling and Oxford gave us yet another. It's not "perfect British English", it's perfect Oxford or American spelling. I don't even like Oxford commas let alone Oxford spelling! Cheers and the next time you ping me you better tell me something useful and not be wasting my time again. I still oppose the change away from organisations and no one has supported you so far. The worst part was the original change was made without discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we actually care about that what-are-the-Germans-learning, I have plenty of books (current editions) on English as a global language in which I can look that up, but I'm not going to do it if it won't affect the outcome, since it's non-trivial work. I suspect it won't matter because, yes, -ize is also a standardi[z|s]ed British spelling, known as Oxford style, preferred in a substantial amount of British/Commonwealth academic book publishing (i.e., same basic register as WP's usage), but eschewed by the British press (and we care ... why? WP:NOT#NEWS).

This is one of the reasons we should not have huge flag-laden banners on talk page and in article editnotices browbeating editors with WP:OWNish claims that this page uses X English or that pages uses Y English so you'd better comply. Only someone with no linguistics training would buy into that nonsense. The Canadian one is particularly silly, because actual research into Canadian usage shows that it's a rather random mishmash of "American" and "British" and some Canadian dialect words, and varies widely throughout the country. All the other Commonwealth ones should just be redirected to the British one, since there is no difference in an encyclopedic register between written British, Australian, etc., other than a small number of regional dialect words, which our guideline suggest we avoid anyway. That would leave Commonwealth and American, and we don't need anything for those other than an small, no-flags, non-obvious notice, and definitely not two sets of "we own these articles" templates for the article and its talk page (the templates sets don't even match. [shaking fist] The entire pseudo-scheme is an exercise is nationalistic junk-waving. Yes, I will be preparing a TfD. RFC at WT:MOS already came to a consensus to clean up this mess, and it was muddied by a forumshopping and canvased counter proposal, with a present alleged, but procedurally invalid, result of a combined no consensus. 00:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, and because between North American style and Oxford style, -ize is the British usage, and WP:RETAIN does not apply to this name space (go read it – it's strictly about defaulting to the style used in first non-stub version of a periarticular, singular article, and does not apply to groups of them; and it only kicks in when there aren't any reasons to prefer one over the other, and consensus is not reached for one on the merits. As categories are groups of articles, and do not have article content thus have no stub or non stub edits, it's not applicable here. MOS:STRONGNAT principle has be taken to sometimes apply here (it to was written for article, but it doesn't have a complicated rationale like RETAIN), However, in Category namespace, the category schema and the STRONGNAT arguments can conflict. All factors considered: Just apply category name space rationales to categories, and mainspace rules to articles. 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose, and revert the Student, Arts and Journalism categories to the "s" variant. I have no preference for -isation over -ization, or vice versa, but I do think that topical subcategories such as these should follow the style of the national-level parent category, which in this case is Category:Organisations based in Germany. Any nomination to change -ization to -isation for Germany should start with the top-level category (and then the subcategories will follow at WP:CFD/S). Nothing is gained, in my opinion, from having inconsistency within a nation's category tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to keep within-country consistency, per Black Falcon. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- If there has been Americanisation in Germany, it will have related to the area where the US army was stationed there. However Germany is also a member of EU, which operates in multiple languages, including British English, but not American English. This means that British English is far more likely to be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect: Deutsche Welle prefers organization by 15:1 to organisation. The English version of Spiegel online uses organization almost 20 times more often than organisation. The UK may have pushed EU institutions into using "organisation" per their style guide, but that doesn't have relevant implications on how English as a second language is used in Germany. While we could talk about WP:STRONGTIES, this nomination is mainly about reverting the recent abuse of WP:CFD/S in breach of our policy and for purposes the procedure was explicitly not meant for. --PanchoS (talk) 22:56, 7 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:Spy-Fi films[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. Note that the category was already empty while closing the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill-defined genre category that does not provide any organizational benefits to the project. Films are categorized by genre on Wikipedia, but no reputable film database (i.e. IMDB, the AFI Catalog, the NY Time movie database) recognizes the existence of a "spy-fi" genre (that is spy films with science-fiction elements). It is a grouping that is not recognized by authoritative film databases/catalogs. Films that belong in more than one genre can be categorized in more than one genre (i.e. "spy film" and "science-fiction film"), and there is no organizational benefit in creating fresh categories by arbitrarily combining two existing categories. The number of hybrid categories will increase exponentially if they are not rooted in real world application. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting. Taeyebaar has a years-long history of changing genres and adding new categories then edit warring with the multiple editors who disagreed with him. He has been told many times to get consensus for his genre changes, but his response is that since he is right, he is not edit warring. His Talk page history shows dozens and dozens of warnings that he has removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting Most of the article has been established by reliable scholarly sources, including TV and movies cited by google scholar so a category will be needed to go with it. Gothicfilm is a long term history of edit warring and has edit warred with several editors in related topic including myself--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I revert others making dubious edits beyond yourself. Blowback is common. Google scholar is not a RS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are the ones that are dubious according to many editors. If you think google scholar is not a legitimate source, you should review Wikipedia policy or ask someone to help you understand it. It's a wonder your edits are questioned by everyone else.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then by your own standard your edits are dubious, as you have been reverted by dozens of editors. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that's the common arguments you use every time you edit war with someone, but try to make yourself an exception from your own logic. Google scholar is also the ultimate reliable source here on WIkipedia. If you're upset about that policy, you're on the wrong site.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The ultimate reliable source?" Google Scholar is not a source. It's a search engine. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seriously do not mind reflecting disagreements in the sources we use. But did not anyone notice that this category only includes two articles? This seems to be a typical case of small category: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 16 March 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:Long-term construction contracts revenue recognition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this overly specific category appears to be to group topics that have relevance to long-term construction contracts. However, the topics in question have much broader applicability within an accounting and business context, and their application in the context of long-term construction contracts is not defining. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2012) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:37, 13 March 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:Scholars from Rivers State[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 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we don't categorize scholars by which country subdivision they come from. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to academics, purging any who are not. I went through the Rivers State one. One person may have merely got a Birmingham doctorate before moving on to other things and may need purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:OCLOCATION. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is over categorization by location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 7 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:Jewish activists[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see this as gross overcategorization. What defines an activist? Why is this being applied so liberally to Jewish articles? Wlmg (talk) 06:57, 13 March 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:Republic of Ararat[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) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We currently have only about 20 articles related to this short-lived rebellion and republic—not enough to warrant a split from the main category on the rebellion itself. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:44, 13 March 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:Aquatics competitions in Spain[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the contents are International aquatics competitions. I do not see it necessarty to retain the Category:Aquatic competitions in Spain as Spain is the is the only country to have this category, see Category:Aquatics competitions. Note that some other sports do not have a category for national competitions, with the "International competitions" category being directly in the country category for that sport, eg Figure Skating, see Category:Figure skating competitions. NB: I think the term for the sport is "aquatics" not "aquatic" Hugo999 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 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.

1 and 2 article "Political bosses by state" 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: merge. MER-C 11:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
These eight state subcategories only contain 1 or 2 articles and are in states not know for political machines so they have limited growth potential. (No objection to recreating if these get up to 5 or so articles though.) Without exception, all of these articles are already in the appropriate Category:American politicians by state so no double upmerge with a state-level category is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@Collect, Davidwr, Dimadick, Hmains, James Allison, Johnpacklambert, and Marcocapelle: @Number 57, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Ricky81682, Rjensen, Sionk, and Stefanomione:. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background I previously nominated this whole tree for deletion but his nomination isn't meant to re-open that broader topic. Still, I pinged all of those participants to keep me honest. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all the nominations. Historians and political scientists study bosses in a national context not a state context because there are too few in most states. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as an obvious case of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Standard small categories, not particularly viable ones. As long as the articles are in a state-category as well, there is no need for duplications. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- I do not know the American political system enough to comment, save to say that small categories commonly do not help much. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per SMALLCAT. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:19, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1074816903"