Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Category:Fashion journalism[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Category:Fashion journalism. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category currently is inaccurate. Fashion publications and writers mainly feature bloggers or columnists. Calling many of the people in this category "journalists" is misleading because they mostly publish opinion pieces (such as style trends, fashion show analysis, etc.) which is inherently biased. None of these people exclusively write factual information as a typical journalist would. Category:Fashion journalists is very different from Category:Business and financial journalists or Category:Crime journalists. I propose renaming to Category:Fashion criticism, like the categories for writers on similar topics like music, theatre, and art. Woebegone (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These are (or should be) about people writing for newspapers and magazines about fashion. As such they are entitled to be called journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Music critics and film critics also write for newspapers and magazines, but they are called critics because they analyze music and film. Most of the people in those categories do not report on music, film, theatre, artworks, and other types of art, which is why those categories are not called journalists. Can you explain why fashion critics/journalists are different? Woebegone (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the function of fashion magazines, columns, etc is to report on fashion not to criticise it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2018 (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:Farhangian University[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now No objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree -- This appears to be an umbrella body for all the teacher training colleges in Iran. In principle, each of the 100 branches is probably entitled to an article, so that there is ample scope for this category, but the Iran universities tree is a rather undeveloped one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (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:Teachers colleges[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Category:Teachers colleges. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. Education schools is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Colleges of Education. This needs a headnote explaining that it is about Category:Teacher training colleges, another potential name: all schools provide education (or should do). These are about teaching the teachers, which is slightly different. In UK, most of the teacher training colleges were amalgamated into Polytechnics, which have since been rebranded as universities. In parallel with this, most universities had a School of Education where graduates could do a fourth year to achieve a post-graduate certificate of education. The American usage of calling tertiary colleges "schools" is misleading in British English. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Peterkingiron's proposal is too heavily influenced by British usage. Rathfelder (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Education Schools is too heavily influenced by American usage. If you do not like my suggestion, please find something you consider more NPOV between British and American usage. I have already offered Category:Teacher training colleges as an alternative. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree there should be a merger, buut I'd like a wider discussion as to the most appropriate name for the merged category.Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2018 (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:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all wikiprojects[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all wikiprojects. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not truly a WikiProject participation category but rather a quasi-wiki-philosophy category based on the rejection of WikiProject membership. I propose, at a minimum, moving it to a name that is shorter (Category:Wikipedians who participate in all WikiProjects) or, better yet, more descriptive (Category:Wikipedians who reject WikiProject membership). However, unlike most wiki-philosophy user categories, there is no established wiki-philosophy for rejecting WikiProject membership, and so my first preference is to delete the category and simply let users express this opinion via the userbox, without generating an opinion-based category grouping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename to ".... participate in all wikiprojects" (as that changes the meaning). Delete unless someone provides a reasonable explanation of how the category could be useful. DexDor (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, I've struck that portion of my proposal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also expect that a userbox is sufficient and a category is not needed, but let's check this also out with User:SMcCandlish who created the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I usually ping the category creator in the nomination, but forgot to do so this time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a rather recent wiki-philosophical/wiki-political, userbox-related category, like many others we have (in particular, it's a pro-WP:CONLEVEL, anti-WP:OWNership one, and serves the specific purpose of deflating "your view doesn't count since you're not a member of this project" bullshit). So, Keep. No actual deletion rationale has been provided; the above is a combination of WP:IDONTKNOWIT / WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff (don't understand what it is, not interested in it, ergo it must be bad). There is also no particular reason that such an internal category must have a short name; it has nothing to do with readers and article categorization, and it's name was chosen very carefully (including use of the word "participants" vs. "members" in paticular, persuant to a CfD years ago that moved a bunch of then-extant "WikiProject Foo members" categories to use the word "participants", shortly after the community nuked WP:Esperanza on the basis that everything on WP is open to everyone and there are no no membership organizations, no special clubs, no walled-garden cliques. Neither of the suggested renames get the entire point across: "who participate in" isn't true, unless you literally go project by project and participate in every single one of them. "who reject WikiProject membership" is confusingly misleading (implying refusal to participate in them, to most people who read it), and missing half of the point: it's not just rejection of membership per se, but of the notion that prior involvement is a requirement or confers privilege. There's an important difference between considering oneself a de facto participant in every project, vs. actively working in all of them, or refusing to work in any of them. Finally, WP:CONCISE applies to articles and by extension to article titles; it isn't really an argument for excessive shortening of project categories, particularly when doing so results in ambiguity or loss of context. "Concise" doesn't just means "short", but short while conveying the same message.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I might put the userbox on my user page (agreeing with the philosophy), I can't imagine how it can be useful to know who else has this userbox on their user page. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing that clarification, and I agree with most everything you stated. On the matter of the category's name, a shorter name is not a must but, all else being equal, is generally preferred. However, based on your explanation above (and assuming the category is kept), I am content with Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves participants in all WikiProjects (fixing capitalization) or perhaps the slightly shorter Category:Wikipedians who claim participation in all WikiProjects. On the matter of the deletion rationale, it is essentially that the category appears to serve no useful function, i.e. I understand the userbox but do not see the value added by a category that groups users who use the userbox. As DexDor stated above, what's unclear is "how the category [itself] could be useful", distinguishing the function of a category (to group related pages) from a userbox (to express a view/sentiment). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (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:Songs written by Greeeen[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Category:Songs written by Greeeen. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not do songwriters by band name - which is the marketing term used to sell records. Members of a band can change, but the songwriting credits do not. Richhoncho (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS Here is a sample previous discussion which also refers to other discussions. Discussion here --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer:. I always thought they were a songwriting duo, and as such, although I am not in favour of conjoined songwriters in any event, decided others might disagree with me. Happy to leave the Warren Bros to your more specialist knowledge.I do think Peach Pickers (and others) should be demerged for the very reasons you state. (Why should a songwriter have 2 entries in the same cat?). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2018 (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.

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. Timrollpickering 23:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up on this earlier discussion in which there was consensus to rename Palestinian territories categories to State of Palestine starting in 2013. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2018 (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.

Implementation note: For the record, here are the diffs for my follow-up work on the parent categories. User:Spiderjerky and User:Place Clichy also helped. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval politics[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. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, most of these categories consist of a single list article and two subcategories with (dis)establishments of states and territories. Note for implementation: those two (dis)establishments subcats should not be included in the merger, since they are already part of Category:YYYY establishments and Category:YYYY disestablishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support -- Most seem to have a list of rulers in YYYY and a category for states established in YYYY. My sampling did not produce any disestablishments, but I do not doubt they are there. This "in politics" level is a wholly unnecessary one. It may be this nom can be carried rather further towards the present. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is an interesting point. I wonder how other editors think about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early years are much easier to navigate - much fewer sub cats; thus this extra layer impedes rather than helps the navigation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of a large established tree of politics by year Tim! (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is where to start the tree. The 16th century is a much better start than the 11th century, for example because in the 16th century the English parliament begins to play an increasingly important role. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2018 (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 mathematicians who died in the Holocaust[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 26#Category:Jewish mathematicians who died in the Holocaust. ℯxplicit 00:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having both Category:Mathematicians who died in the Holocaust and Category:Jewish mathematicians who died in the Holocaust seems redundant, seeing as nearly all members off the former would also be in the latter. Kyuko (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2018 (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/2018_August_11&oldid=871694530"