Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

Category:Lacrosse at the 1928 Summer Olympics

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Lacrosse at the 1928 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only page it contains is also a page in the parent category Category:Lacrosse at the Summer Olympics - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the parent category. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non used category, not likely to ever be used - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say the only page it contains is also in Category:Lacrosse at the Summer Olympics. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the parent category. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined these two items as they raise exactly the same issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Lacrosse at the Summer Olympics. There is little or no scope for expansion. If someone creates a body of articles such that we need them again, they can be re-created. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2017 (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:Black American rugby union players

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Black American rugby union players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not an intersection we generally create. —swpb^{T go beyond} 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (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:Tamil sequel films

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Category:Tamil sequel films. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tamil sequel films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Sequels should be categorised by country, not language. There is no parent category called "Sequel films by language", only "Sequel films by country". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sequel categories are underpopulated and do not require splitting. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sequelness and language do not intersect to create a WP:DEFINING trait of the films. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2017 (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:Despotate of Arta

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 20#Category:Despotate of Arta. ℯ xplicit 01:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Despotate of Arta to Category:Medieval Epirus

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it just contains the eponymous article and a subcat. When merged, the article should also be added to Category:Despotates. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a small category, but it relates to an independent state, so that I see a case for keeping it. There are actually 5-6 articles in the tree, as we have an article on each ruler. One answer might be to retain this as a cat-redirect to an article on the rulers (for which the despotate article will be a good main article). This is similar to a solution we adopt for Eponymous categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of the latter? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, this is how we deal with eponymous categories consisting of a bio-article and a "works by" sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know how this "solution" was adopted? It's the first I'm hearing of this approach, and it concerns me if we are redirecting categories to articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a small, but existing tree at Category:Despotates. I can see the merits of a cat redirect solution, but I also don't see there being a siginficant improvemen to the encyclopedia from doing so as opposed to retaining things as they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) only the articles to Category:Medieval Epirus (Category:Despots of Arta is already categorized via Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus), per nom, and also add the main article to Category:Despotates ~~and Category:Arta, Greece~~. There is not enough existing content (only 3 members) about this topic to warrant an eponymous category, and all of the articles are adequately interlinked (including at Despotate of Arta#Despots). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arta was the capital of the short-lived state. But the article mentions that it also controlled Angelokastro, Aetolia-Acarnania, Nafpaktos (Lepanto), part of the Gulf of Corinth, and the river Acheron. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've struck that portion of my comment. Although Arta was the capital, we don't after all place Kingdom of Prussia in Category:Berlin. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:26, 20 November 2017 (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:Paradise Papers

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Paradise Papers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Facebook and Twitter are not defined by the Paradise Papers nor are other individuals included in this category. At the very least, this needs to be pruned. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just because some inappropriate additions are made to a cat is not a valid reason for deletion. This happens to nearly all cats from time to time, especially newer ones. Mais oui! (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea being once it was pruned down, there'd being little left to make the category itself worthwhile per WP:SMALLCAT. If the included articles are appropriate AND there are a sufficient number of them, I have no problem with this being kept. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question, @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Mais oui!: after Facebook and Twitter are no longer in this category, do the remaining articles belong in it or is more pruning necessary? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the question. When I nominated it, it was mainly populated with individuals or entities named in List of people and organizations named in the Paradise Papers. Outside of a couple articles, it has been purged and replaced with others. I am uncertain on the appropriateness of the current crop. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that meanwhile User:Trivialist has nearly emptied the category, without taking part of this discussion, that is far from helpful. The articles that were in the category are: Sibur, Estera, Frederik Obermaier, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Asiaciti Trust and Appleby (law firm); and of course the articles Paradise Papers and List of people and organizations named in the Paradise Papers that are still in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the articles for which "Paradise Papers" was not a defining characteristic. Trivialist (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or purge (leaving just articles that are specifically about the topic). DexDor^(talk) 15:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Paradise papers are an important leak (theft?) from the world of aggressive tax planning in tax havens. This is an activity, which a number of major countries tax authorities are trying to curb. Some of the content may need to be purged, as being in the nature of a performance by performer categorisation, but that is as far as it goes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This leak has had a global impact and the category is only likely to grow as more material is released. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for clarification @Peterkingiron and Philafrenzy: according to User:Trivialist the category should be purged down to only two articles Paradise Papers and List of people and organizations named in the Paradise Papers. Do you agree with that? and if you do, should the category still be kept with only two articles? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other articles that are closely associated with the subject such as the two firms other than Appleby from whom the material was leaked, the ICIJ who managed the whole thing and Süddeutsche Zeitung who played a major role too. This is all in the sources. It should be left for a month to see what more shakes out as new information is released. This topic is very similar to the Panama Papers and that category still exists though it isn't heavily populated but has some other articles that may be created for the Paradise Papers, e.g. the leaker, reactions. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that "Paradise Papers" is not defining for the individual firms—for example, Richard Nixon isn't categorized under Category:Watergate scandal. A category like "Organizations named in the Paradise Papers" seems more suitable. Trivialist (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to have "Organizations named in the Paradise Papers" we might as well have just "Paradise Papers" as there may be some articles that are individuals not organisations. If we are now just debating what's in the category this discussion should be on the category talk page and might as well be closed as keep. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is room for a modest category, including the Appleby firm they were hacked from; the journalists who made a news story our of it; and a few more. However, we need to be careful of innuendo. Much of what was found was legal tax-planning (avoidance not evasion). And there is a legitimate reason for having off-shore investment vehicles (such as investment trusts). These are able to invest, for example in America and recover income tax where that is not due from them as a foreign entity; they then pay the income to their investors, who pay tax on it in their own countries. Additionally, the vehicle can invest in a number of companies, which provides its investors with a means of spreading the risk. The alternative would be direct investment in American companies, but that means that a foreign person has themselves to deal with a lot of hassle in filing unnecessary American tax returns and reclaims. I have on occasions held off-shore investments; and I always pay whatever tax is properly due. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2017 (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.