Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 30 December 2 >

December 1

[edit]

Category:People from the Province of Rome

[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Category:People from the Province of Rome. Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I know the cat tree was named after People from the Province of foo, but the Province of Rome was renamed to the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. So, the cat should use the name of the second-tier administrative area (first tier is region) at that time or current name? Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 1 December 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:Communes of the Province of Rome

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The province is renamed (and legally different) to Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, thus the cat Category:Communes of the Province of Rome is redundant. The only entry left in the old cat, Tenuta di San Liberato, Bracciano, is not belongs to both cats Matthew hk (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify, all comune that under the former Province have now under the Metropolitan City. But not sure if it really a historical significant to have 2 cats if new comuni were created in the Metropolitan City era, or any former comune that abolished in the Province era. Matthew hk (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15#Italian municipalities for whatever choosing Category:Communes of the Metropolitan City of Rome (the existing cat title) or choosing Category:Municipalities of the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital as alternative name of the new cat. The latter match the current article title Metropolitan City of Rome Capital; a bold, undiscussed move to Metropolitan City of Rome was reverted. Matthew hk (talk) 23:36, 1 December 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:Civil servants by nationality

[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. Clearly, simply merging the two category trees under one of the existing titles is not the solution, and there are some countries where the current distinction is entirely appropriate. That being said, User:Rathfelder and User:Marcocapelle raised a few concerns which were not satisfactorily addressed during the discussion.
I've always thought of "civil servant" as referring to a bureaucrat or functionary, whereas a "government official" is someone who holds an office of authority. However, regardless of the precise definitions, it is clear that the distinction between the two can be blurry, is not necessarily the same for each country, and is not being applied consistently on en.wiki. For example, if government officials are a subset of civil servants, why is Category:Civil servants a subcategory of Category:Government officials? In what way are mayors (part of Category:Local government officers) more accurately classified as "civil servants" than "government officials"? And what about elected officials? The category description at Category:Government officials excludes them, but many judges, local government officers, and others are elected—and Category:Judges and Category:Local government officers are both subcategories.
As the next step, I would recommend a broader discussion (perhaps an RfC) to figure out the intended scope of the top-level categories, Category:Civil servants and Category:Government officials. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have two, largely not overlapping, set of sub-categories, Government officials by nationality and Civil servants by nationality. Clearly there may be distinctions in individual countries, but generally these seem to be two names for the same thing. I haven't found any articles explaining the distinctions. If this proposal is accepted I'd be happy to look at each country individually, but my first thought is that they should all go with the top category. Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A government official or functionary is an official who is involved in public administration or government, through either election, appointment, selection, or employment. A bureaucrat or civil servant is a member of the bureaucracy.
Do I read that correctly as: civil servants = government officials + supporting staff? Next question, if that is the case, wouldn't a civil servants category suffice, with subcategories for specific types of government officials? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather reverse it. Technically civil servants is broader than government officials, and in addition the civil servants categories have been populated much better than the government officials categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terms are not interchangeable with each other; "civil servants" refers to anybody who works for the government at all, while "government official" only refers to the subset who are in upper management roles. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same question as to Hmains: if that is the case, wouldn't a civil servants category suffice, with subcategories for specific types of government officials? I'm asking this also, because it will be difficult "how upper" an upper management level must be in order to qualify. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source of the statements: "government official" only refers to the subset who are in upper management roles." and "civil servants is broader than government officials"?

Isn't the truth that the use of these terms is culture specific? There is no real difference in meaning. The category of government officials includes Mail carriers and Customs officers. In the UK and some other places the term civil servant is used to obscure the reality these people are government officials just as much as the Gestapo personnel‎ were. In the UK we wouldnt call police officers civil servants, but the only entry in Category:Yugoslav civil servants is Yugoslav police officers. Category:Bahamian civil servants includes only Governors of the Central Bank of The Bahamas. Aren't they upper management?

  • Mail carriers and customs officers are certainly government employees, but in no part of the world would they be deemed "officials". An official is a person who is in a position of authority, not just any person who has a job. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to cite proof of the definitions of words. By your definition, my mother would have been a government official when she worked as a mail clerk in a hospital, which she clearly was not. I actually think you may be conflating "official" with "officer", but those terms aren't interchangeable — an official is a person who is either appointed or elected to a role where they have the power to influence or set government policy. A person who is hired through a conventional employment process in a role where their job is to carry out government policy, but not to change it, can certainly be described as a civil servant or as an officer, but is not an official. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other problem with this category is that is about nationality - of the person, not where they work. So an Italian person working for the European Bank in Brussels is down as an Italian civil servant. But they are not an Italian government official - at least not if that means they are an official of the Italian government. Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Different things. And have different meanings in different countries (e.g. in Britain, only members of HM Civil Service are termed civil servants, so it's a very specific term; in some other countries, the term includes such people as local government officers and even police officers). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to keep the articles for different countries - though I suspect some should be merged and some should be split. It's this subcategory which I think is superfluous. On a global level there isnt an agreed distinction of meaning. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a classic case of the need for WP not to try to impose uniformity on the diverse nomenclature of different countries, where similar terms are used in slightly different ways. In UK, a nurse working in the NHS is employed by a government organisation, but she (or he) is not in ordinary parlance a civil servant, or a government officer or official. The same applies to a prison officer. A judge might holds an office, but it would normally be called a judicial office not a government office. The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the government and holds an office, but is not a civil servant, or a government officer or official, because the Bank of England is a separate body corporate, not an emanation of government. ON the other hand the most junior clerk in a ministry is a civil servant, but would not usually be called a government officer. I suspect there are cases where articles are inappropriately categorised, but that is a matter of editing content, not merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Peterkingiron. I dont want to merge the individual country categories. I just want a container category into which they can all fit. Two seperate global categories are unhelpful. Would it be better to call the head category "Government employees?" Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 14 December 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:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name

[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name. Steel1943 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this triple intersection? How is the fact that a book has the Divine Name a defining thing for a book? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:32, 1 December 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:American people of African descent

[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: containerize. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories for descent by country, but having articles directly in them implies a racial use. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which has been closed as containerize as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, DexDor, Necrothesp, Power~enwiki, Hmains, Dimadick, BrownHairedGirl, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Containerise per nom and per previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize. Note: the African category already has such text (since it was created in 2010). Note: IMO we shouldn't be categorizing people by their great^n-grandparent's nationality at all; this is a small step in the right direction. DexDor (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise per nom. These categories are for people of specific national descent, not general ethnicity. I don't agree, incidentally, that the nationality of great-grandparents isn't relevant. Although further back probably isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise I place greater value in descent than other users (I have had an interest in genealogy as a hobby since my early teens), but these categories are often misused to contain everyone who looks vaguely "black" or "yellow" instead of actually documenting their family background. We should never categorize by vague notions of race. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree it is good to put these people into subcats but that also means that all the direct articles must be manually examined and placed into subcats, creating subcats as needed regardless whether the resulting subcats end up with very few articles. Hmains (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a broader nomination about people of African descent categories can be found on the CfD page of 7 December. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise and purge of articles -- It will be necessary to ensure that this does not orphan articles of ethnic categories. The use of the category should be limited to those who have a connection with a particular African (or Asian) nation, not those whose ancestors arrived though the slave trade from an unspecified part of Africa. I am not sure if we still have an African-American category or Black American, but the articles would belong there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - sources are not always available on the specific country of origin that the individuals are from. Therefore it isn't necessary to containerize. If there aren't reliable citations to prove ethnic origin, than the articles shouldn't be in the category in the first place. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize we do not classify by race. Putting people directly in these categories comes to close to directly classifying by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2019 (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:Indian Muslim creationists

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 1 December 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:Hospital buildings in Australia

[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Category:Hospital buildings in Australia. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. They are adequately characterized as hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 1 December 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:Medical buildings in Sri Lanka

[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. All these buildings are hospitals and they are categorised as such. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 1 December 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:Catholic terminology

[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: purge, then upmerge to Category:Catholicism and Category:Christian terminology. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge to Category:Catholicism. Like most terminology categories, this category hardly contains any articles about terminology (i.e. about language) but instead it contains particular terms that each belong in (and mostly are already part of) a content category. In this case, most articles are already in some other subcategory of Category:Catholicism, e.g. in Category:Catholic liturgy or Category:Catholic culture, and the few remaining articles may be moved directly to Category:Catholicism. We have deleted/merged many of this type of terminology categories before. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 1
Agree, if we are also doing the other Terminology categories. Editor2020 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some examples:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 27#Category:Canon law legal terminology - discussion still open
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#Category:Globalization terminology - merge
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 27#Category:Labor terminology - delete
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 30#Category:Computer storage terminology - delete
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 24#Category:Statistical terminology - delete
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 3#Category:Judaism terminology - keep
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 21#Category:Warfare terminology - merge
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 31#Category:Archaeological terminology - keep
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Category:Electronics terminology - keep, but purge of articles which are not actually about terminology, even if this leads to the category being emptied (meanwhile the category no longer exists)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Category:Aviation terminology - delete
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 26#Category:Terminology of Carl Jung - upmerge
- Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a list of CFDs here. DexDor (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Am getting fed up with these things continually cropping up in CFD and having the same wearisome arguments trotted out every time. Purge and be done with it. After that, if any true terms remain, think of re-creating. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I share the scepticism, would it be appropriate to apply some caution and let this topic be a subject of a broader evaluation further up the category tree? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purging (which doesn't need a CFD) and then, if the number of remaining articles is below about 20, dual upmerge. For most topics I'd keep a category for a smaller number of articles, but these terminology categories have such a history of being misused as miscellaneous categories that it's best to delete as many of them as possible. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 1 December 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:Pat Rolle albums

[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) 09:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much like the deleted Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums and Category:Gut (band) albums, this category only contains a series of redirects for albums all redirecting to the same page which provides no info about them. If there was something more than just being listed in a discography section and contained reliably sourced content, then there could be value to such categorization. They may be valid search terms, but the categorization that gives readers zero additional sourced content is a bit of a disservice. In another example going back a few more year, Category:The Balham Alligators albums was kept in a split !vote only because there was actual info about each of the albums in the target article (albeit, the lack of any sources is concerning). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:39, 1 December 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:Calf (cattle)

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent, Category:Cattle. There's almost nothing here, and we have (and need) no corresponding other "baby animal" categories (kittens, puppies, foals, etc.). The category name is malformed, too, but we don't need to fix it since we don't need the category. Of the four articles, two are as much about adult cattle as about calves. The subcat. Category:Veal will better serve reader interests under Category:Beef, so should not move up to Category:Cattle (even Category:Beef isn't in it, but in Category:Cattle products). The subcat. Category:Individual calves is already a subcat. of Category:Individual cattle and should not move up into Category:Cattle. It only has two articles, so I'm nominating it for deletion, too (in next listing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:16, 1 December 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:Individual calves

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent, Category:Individual cattle. There are only two articles, and this category has minimal chances of expanding. Even if it did, by how many? One more famous calf in the next 100 years?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:16, 1 December 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:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic

[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NPOV issues. There has been no discussion about the creation of this cat. Given that the Donetsk People's Republic is not recognised, how is it significant that there is a population (with the only substantiated figures being provided by the unrecognised entity occupying the territory)? Such categories imply that Wikipedia chooses to recognise this entity despite global, mainstream sourcing thoroughly repudiating its existence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 1 December 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_December_1&oldid=881198117"