Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5[edit]

Category:REOTITH[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: procedural close, meanwhile the category has been converted to an article. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a category page. Unsourced, poorly written attempt at an article with probably no salvageable content. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Seldom do we get category names at cfd in All Caps. Oculi (talk) 17:10, 5 October 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:AMERICANS[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: speedy delete WP:C2C, etc. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not a normal category page L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Seldom do we get category names at cfd in All Caps, and then two come along. There is Category:Americans. Oculi (talk) 17:11, 5 October 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:Vertebrates described in 1771[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) 05:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vertebrate categories to be deleted (137)
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty vertebrate categories, an undesired (and negligently implemented) intermediate category between the Category:Animals described in 2001-level and Category:Birds described in 2001-level, per recent WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. An older (~4 year), related (invertebrates) CfD is here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE & WT:Animals notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and previous discussion. Loopy30 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and previous discussion (yet more of Caftaric's work with no prior discussion or consensus). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments. Negligently implemented indeed - create and dash on to other footling concerns. Oculi (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and if this happens again, be advised you could have used WP:C1 CSD criteria to delete. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:16, 5 October 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 Czechoslovak history[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) 05:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as largely overlapping topics, Jews and Judaism in former countries is history by definition. This is a similar nomination as in this earlier discussion. @Peterkingiron, Cplakidas, and Place Clichy: pinging participants to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Personally I am not sure it makes sense to have a category for Jewish Czechoslovak history at all, because the Jewish communities of the Czech lands and Slovakia are so different and do not have many parallels, despite being under the same political entity for ~45-60 years. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- They are much the same thing. In both cases the country no longer exists, so that the whole subject is inevitably history. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 7 October 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:Queer[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 on exactly what to do, but there is consensus that something should probably change. As discussed, a widely advertised fresh discussion would probably be the best route here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This needs a review and purge. It's not an inherently invalid category, but the problem is that the word "queer" has two obviously related but not identical and not equally defining usages: it can convey a highly politicized and WP:DEFINING form of LGBT identity, as in Queer Nation or Queer theory, or it can just be a non-defining attempt to drain the LGBTTQQIAAPFABGLITTEROMGWTFBBQ alphabet soup by finding the shortest possible alternative that isn't excluding anybody. But the problem with this category in its current form is that it has a really unfortunate habit of getting misused as a WP:SHAREDNAME catchall for practically anything that uses the word Queer in its name or mission statement at all, such as LGBT culture in New York City or Queer Arts Festival or Queer Notions or Buddies in Bad Times or Out On Screen — many of which are queer in the latter sense rather than the former. For example, NYC's LGBTQ scene most certainly does not have any uniquely towering claim to being defined by "queerness" that San Francisco's and Los Angeles's and Chicago's and Toronto's and Vancouver's and London's and Seattle's and Berlin's and Montreal's LGBTQ scenes can't match — and there's nothing uniquely political-queer about Vancouver's LGBTQ film festival that's somehow unmatched by Inside Out or Frameline or BFI Flare (the difference between those film festivals and the VQFF isn't that they're inherently less queer-oriented than VQFF is, it's just that they don't happen to have Q's in their names.) So there are certainly things that belong here, like Queer Nation and queer theory and heteropatriarchy — but there are also many things here that aren't defined by queerness just because they happen to have the word "queer" in their names: VQFF is not more inherently "political queer" than every other LGBTQ film festival just because it has a Q in its name and the others don't, New York City's LGBTQ scene is not more inherently "political queer" than anywhere else's, Romania's Radio Q is not more inherently "political queer" than Canada's Proud FM just because the Canadian station doesn't have a Q in its call sign, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is problematic because the category was intended for a particular usage of an ambiguous word. If kept at all, more description or a disambiguator is needed in the category name. But what? For example, what exactly is queer about Queer Nation, apart from that the fact that it is an LGBT political advocacy group? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically what I am saying here is delete unless (i.e. unless a proper solution can be found). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mess; other than many of the categorized articles having "queer" in their name it's hard to gather what this category is attempting to capture (other than perhaps a synonym for LGBT which we have categorized to the nines). Obviously just having "queer" in your name is an insufficient basis on which to categorize (WP:SHAREDNAME), but without going through all these articles; which, I'm disinclined to do, it may be best to containerize the cat, keep the subcats without prejudice to further deletions/prunings, place any of the articles categorized in a subcat if able, and purge the remainder. (WP:TNT) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat has provided a good summary of the problem. Some of the articles may specifically refer to gay radicalism, while other articles have nothing to do with homosexuality or gay people at all, creating a shared-name problem that, if not addressed, will demand repeated purging in order to maintain focus. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's possible that some kind of parenthetical renaming could narrow the focus, but I don't know what we would be deciding the category was "really" about. I could be convinced otherwise but at the moment I lean towards delete. Would also delete Category:Queer magazines, which unlike some of the other subcats doesn't seem to have a meaningful function. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above rescope or delete. Personally I lean towards deleting, because it would require vigilant watching to maintain an appropriate scope to the category. Catrìona (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Bearcat: thanks for a very thoughtful nomination. As a general principle, I would oppose rescoping without a corresponding change in title, because in my experience it is very important that a category is clearly named, i.e. that it "does what it says on the tin". If the actual purpose of the category is revealed in small print to be significantly different to or narrower than what is conveyed in the title, then we set up a destructive cycle where one editor adds a page to a category in good faith based on the title, and another removes it based on the small print. Those situations should be avoided.
So have you given any thought about whether a more verbosely descriptive title might be a workable way of narrowing the scope and providing some sort of viable category?
Something which perhaps conveys something along the lines of "Queer (radical LGBT+ based on queer theory)"? (Yes, my suggestion is of course hideously clumsy. It's just a tentative exploratory step)
I am not suggesting that there is any easy answer, because radicalism doesn't have clear boundaries and much mainstream contemporary LGBT+ activism incorporates some elements of queer theory. However, I note that we have managed to sustain a Category:Radical feminism+subcats, even tho that concept does have many of the same fuzzy boundary issues (albeit without the alternative all-encompassing meaning of "queer").
I should say that my initial inclination was to delete, but I think that on such a high-profile ideological issue it is important that we do -- and are seen to do -- due diligence, by having as broad a discussion as possible. If a decision to delete was made without clear evidence of a broad and well-informed consensus, I think that there is a significant risk that LGBT/Queer media could pick up on the deletion and run some viral clickbait stories with titles along the lines of "Wikipedia Abolishes Queer", with your own good faith entirely overlooked.
I looked at WT:LGBT and its most recent arhive, and I don't even see a notification there of this proposal, let alone the preliminary discussion which I had hoped to see.
This discussion has been open for more than 35 days, with two relistings. But even so, I count only 4 editors plus me responding to the nomination. Even if all 5 of us enthusiastically agreed on a change, that is too narrow a consensus for such a high-profile change. So I suggest that it would be better to withdraw this CFD pending an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth clearly advertising this nomination at WT:LGBT and relist the discussion again. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 19 October 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:Humane societies in Canada[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 and delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination as follow-up on this earlier discussion. @IQ125, Black Falcon, Peterkingiron, and Fayenatic london: pinging participants of earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 5 October 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:Angelina Jolie[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) 05:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON General Ization Talk 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Angelina Jolie is one of the most influential actresses and filmmakers of the 21st century. Cwf97 Talk 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwf97 - I don't think being influential is (directly) relevant to OCEPON. Would you like to reconsider your !vote per this ? DexDor (talk) 20:34, 7 October 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:Thai Volunteer Defense Corps Officers[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) 05:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category currently only includes former Ministers of Interior, who are automatically head of the corps. Such automatic posts are not a defining characteristic of the category members. Paul_012 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 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:List of armed conflicts in 2014[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: speedy rename pluralization per C2A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category name cannot be "List". Since this is not the only one, please review is there are other categories with the same name and rename accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 5 October 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_October_5&oldid=871688681"