Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam[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) 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category may initially seem useful. But it largely duplicates the category tree of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. The category breaches WP:NPOV. It declares, in Wikipedia's voice, that certain organisations are "terrorist". Many of these designations are made by dubious governments with vested interests. For example, the United Arab Emirates has designated the Muslim Association of Britain as "terrorist". No other global government has. The British government hasn't. And yet this category is applied. The Muslim American Society is another example. Even Council on American–Islamic Relations. These categories fail WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCEGRS and the broader criteria at WP:CAT AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's a government designating it, how it is "Wikipedia's voice"?" - exactly why I'm not nominating the government designator categories but this category instead. I removed the category from an article where there was no consensus to keep it. You re-added it without seeking consensus. You consistently fail to edit in accord with WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 15 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:Diacritics[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 Category:Diacritics and split Category:Alphabetic diacritics into Category:Latin-script diacritics, etc. (by language). ~ RobTalk 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is there a difference between a diacritic and an alphabetic diacritic? Category:Alphabetic diacritics is the more comprehensive category, so can we merge Category:Diacritics into it? Dr.enh (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: @Dr.enh: there is no article Alphabetic diacritic, so a reverse merge to Category:Diacritics might be better. User:Verdy p, who set up Category:Alphabetic diacritics, wrote that it is for left-to-right scripts: Latin, Cyrillic, Greek. Well, it's rather POV to exclude Arabic, Hebrew etc from being "alphabetic". Moreover, a few diacritics are used with e.g. both Latin and Greek letters, but not all the pages in that category are used with multiple alphabets, so might it be best to split Category:Alphabetic diacritics into Latin diacritics, Greek diacritics etc? – Fayenatic London 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely not a POV, but part of a published standard. Read more about the Unicode standard and the terminology of what are "alphabets", don't confuse them with the more general "writing systems" (which also include separate "numeral systems") ! verdy_p (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt split per Fayenatic london. However, I'd propose splitting to Category:Latin-script diacritics, Category:Greek-script diacritics etc. to avoid confusion with the language, and per consistency with the existing Category:Latin-script multigraphs. --PanchoS (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why splitting these? all Latin/Greek/Cyrillic diacritics below are encoded identically, they are unified in Unicode, and most of them are in the same "generic" block (though they do not apply to all scripts). There's only a few Cyrillic specific diacritics for numbers (which are not alphabetic, but Cyrillic use the same digits as Latin. Digits are not part of the three alphabets. However there are numbers written with letters in Latin and Greek and Greek may distinguish digits from letters using a diacritic.
    On the opposite, the diacritics for Indic scripts, Hebrew, and Arabic were clearly separated even when they "look" the same across several scripts. verdy_p (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are not driven by encoding standards, but by usefulness for navigation. Although some diacritics e.g. circumflex are used in all three of the above alphabets, others are specific to one script; e.g. iota subscript, rough and smooth breathings are used only in Greek. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various types of diacritics, not all intended for alphabetic scripts, or even abjads, abugidas and any letter systems, but for use with symbols. Hebrew and Arabic are not "alphabets" (they are abjads and work also very differently from abugidas where there are also vowel diactritics but changing the inherent vowel of consonnants, plus diacritics to suppress the inherent vowel or alter the other vowels, or the consonnant). Abjads and abugidas have a very different encoding scheme (and let's not speak about a few scripts that have their own specific encoding, not following the logical ordering but a visual ordering such as Thai, for legacy reasons of compatibility with former non-Unicode standards...). You seem to confuse all writing systems as if they were "alphabetic" (this is an abuse of language). verdy_p (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I was taught Hebrew, the tutor used the word "alphabet", and I do not remember coming across these alternative terms. The article on Alphabet currently[1] starts with the commonplace wider user of the term (most modern alphabets, including Arabic), and then introduces a "true" alphabet using the distinctions that you have made. It is too much to call the common usage "an abuse of language". – Fayenatic London 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the alphabetic one by alphabet. If the same diacritical mark is used on more than one alphabet (e.g. Latin and Cyrillic, it can be categorised in both categories. The fact that Hebrew uses points to indicate vowels is the very reason why we should have different categories for each alphabet or script. I think that what has happened here is that the category under discussion (which should largely be a container category) but has collected items that should be in the alphabetic one, which was probably originally intended for Greek and its derivatives, Latin & Cyrillic. Hebrew does have an alphabet. The first letter is I believe Aleph, which (though cognate with alpha) has a completely differnet value. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, the discussion is now about splitting a category that originally wasn't nominated. I've tagged that category now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 25 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:Palmas Pueblo[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: upmerge to Category:Cataño, Puerto Rico. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for two individual neighbourhoods in the municipality of Cataño, Puerto Rico, as well as one additional article which may be falsely conflating those two neighbourhoods into a larger entity that doesn't actually exist as such. These are the only two neighbourhoods in Cataño with separate standalone articles of their own, and the "common entity" article falsely claims they're in San Juan rather than Cataño — but Cataño only has a total population of about 28K, so separate standalone articles about each individual neighbourhood within it may not actually be necessary or warranted. And even if they are kept, Cataño's eponymous category isn't large enough to need comprehensive subcategorization of every individual thing in it — this was originally created by an editor who's since been blocked, in part for obsessively subcategorizing Puerto Rican topics into unbelievably overgranular (and sometimes entirely unverifiable) categories like "Island Republic" and "Foyer of the Capital". Upmerge to Category:Cataño, Puerto Rico. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 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:Wikipedian educators[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) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, mostly empty except for the WP:NOTHERE-blocked creator having added themselves to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 15 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:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of England[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) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain marquessates which are held as a subsidiary title by dukes. I don't think such a category is necessary. The title of marquess is the rarest in the British peerage, and so even if all of them were to be placed into categories, this still wouldn't require sub-categorization on grounds of numbers. All these articles are redirects to the ducal titles, and so appear in italics in the category. This is sufficient to distinguish marquessates held by dukes from those not held by dukes. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 7#Category:Courtesy Earldoms in the Peerage of England for a similar case. Opera hat (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per precedent of Courtesy earldoms. Where a Marquess was promoted to Duke, he might be granted a new marquess title if his dukedom had the same name, so that his heir would have a separate courtesy title. If the dukedom had a different name the heir would use his old title. This is an insubstantial distinction. Almost invariably the article on the title will be a redirect to the main title, whether or not the marquessate was at one stage the senior title. A category to house redirects is not very useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 18 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:Nationalism by country or 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: rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains nationalism by continent and is described as containing "a listing of nationalism organized by continent." While the whole area remains work in progress, this category's name, currently partly overlapping with Category:Nationalism by country, should follow its content. PanchoS (talk) 13:23, 15 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:Economic disasters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article Economic collapse. Also I would suggest to remove the header text and replace it by a cat main template. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per main article and also because it is slightly less normative. --PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Category:Economic crises as more NPOV and perhaps slightly broader. The main article may need renaming: it is not worthy that several of its "main" sub-articles use this word. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 18 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.

Economic disasters by country[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, while every collapse is a crisis, not every crisis is a collapse, and these categories combine collapses with more 'regular' crises. Note: if these renames are being implemented, the parent category of each should be changed from Category:Economic disasters to Category:Economic crises. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 15 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:Mythemes[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. (I'm ignoring Stefanomione's comments here. His contributions to categories and CFD have been so off-the-wall that he has recently been topic-banned from categories and CFD. If anyone objects to me doing this, let me know. Here, the nomination seems to be sound.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a non-defining characteristic. The term mytheme isn't even mentioned in most of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We could rename to Category:Recurrent elements in myths. Stefanomione (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider that defining either, the articles are occasionally about myths and if so they are seldom about recurrent elements. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 27 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:Paintings by subject[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) 04:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Analogical to Category:Sculptures by subject, Category:Statues by subject ---> More broadly, to Category:Art by subject. Stefanomione (talk) 00:40, 15 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:Paris culture[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Cities in India
Nominator's rationale: We should bring these into line with the majority of subcategories in Category:Culture by city and Category:Culture by nationality and city.
There are two widely established variations: While "Culture in" might tend to be interpreted as high culture, it might at the same time be slightly more pluralistic and open towards minority culture. The alternative wording "Culture of" would probably stress local traditions, including "trivial" every-day culture. It might be seen as excluding culture that is not considered sufficiently "typical" of a city, while including local traditions continued or upheld somewhere else.
I personally still tend to prefer the second variant ("culture of") as the more common, less synthetic wording. In article mainspace, almost all overview articles are named that way, see for example Culture of New York City, Culture of London, Culture of Paris, Culture of Sydney, or Culture of Hong Kong.
High culture mostly belongs in the "Arts in" subcategory anyway, so a slightly more colloquial parent category that better covers traditions and every-day culture might be advantageous. It should also be possible to adjust for unwanted connotations by adding some short, clarifying explanation.
Note that the remaining categories, be it Category:Culture in Lyon or Category:Culture of Mexico City would be subsequently brought into line with whatever is the outcome of this CfD nomination, by followup nominations and/or WP:CFD/S. PanchoS (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to make the scope clearer. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the current naming patter (Udaipur Culture) is short and sweet, but if standards say so and if this is going to make Wikipedia a better place then lets make this change. Vishal0soni (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Having worked a bit in this area it was always necessary to just remember which cities were outliers to the preferred x of y structure. This will save time and needless mistakes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 17 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:South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame inductees[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) 05:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:DNWAUC
The South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame is virtual museum and an annual banquet that has awarded 275 athletes (source) of which 12 have Wikipedia articles. There is a catch 22 with many local awards: either you'r not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article or your famous enough that this award is not defining which is why we don't have any other state-level sports HoF awards. There is no main article yet so I created a list of the category's contents on the creator's talk page. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Brianhass as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject South Dakota. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 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:Recipients of the Order of the Smile[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) SSTflyer 11:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Order of the Smile is charming Polish award for people who make children smile. Over 1,000 people have received the award but very few of those have a Wikipedia article. What's left is an unusual group: an Olympic swimmer, Steven Spielberg, a Soviet animator, the Dalai Lama, the King of Saudi Arabia, J. K. Rowling, a President of Poland, his wife, Oprah, Nelson Mandela, a comic book artist and a pope. I already listed the contents of the category here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Poland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't WP:SMALLCAT; it's that 39 (or 200) people aren't defined by making children smile and have nothing else in common. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A NN award, depending on the POV of a magazine editor. No objection to listifying first. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, almost every category includes elements that have only one characteristic in common. This is what categories are for. — Kpalion(talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that having this award is a defining characteristic of, for example, Nelson Mandela? And if you think we should categorize by non-defining characteristics then how do you think we can avoid articles being in dozens/hundreds/thousands of categories (with consequent effects on editors)? For more info about my position you can look at this. DexDor (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I would say that this is not the type of category for awards that would be regarded as the exceptions spoken of in WP:OCAWARD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 24 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_May_15&oldid=1075704816"