Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Biological toxin weapons[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. Not a CFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no evidence that any person or nation-state has ever successfully weaponized anthrax toxin (lethal toxin and/or edema toxin) or even attempted to weaponize it. The categorization is simply asserted with no citation. (Gene Godbold (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Procedural Close @Gene Godbold: The CFD discussions here are really for if you want to change/delete the overall category. If you want to add/remove individual articles from categories, you can WP:BB and just do it. If you think it might be controversial, you can also start a conversation on the article or WikiProject talk page. Good luck! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 20 March 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.

Books about environmentalism[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/renameper nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have TWO categories with nearly identical names - neither of which is properly named. Category:Books about environmentalism would encompass the entire subject area. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 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:Medieval Iraqi people[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, Iraqi people is anachronistic in the Middle Ages, until halfway the 13th century Iraq was part of the Abbasid Caliphate. This nomination is related to this other discussion. Note: a few articles are not about people of the Abbasid Caliphate, either because they are pre-Abbasid (before 750) or post-Abbasid (after 1250), in that case they may instead be added e.g. to an Arab category. So if agreed this requires a manual merge/rename (@closing admin: in that case please add this to WP:CFDWM). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the principle but I am not sure that "of" is the right proposition, perhaps "under", The caliphs were a ruling dynasty, not a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile in the other discussion the issue of the right preposition has become subject of debate as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comply with the other discussion. I agree that we ought to rename these on the ground of anachronism, but it would be rather silly to reach a decision on where to rename this until the other one's concluded, lest we end up moving this group to a place that's just gotten rejected a few days earlier. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree -- I will go along with Nyttend. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree too with Nyttend. Can someone close this now? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 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:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory[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 Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Country; delete the rest. Thee is agreement that the current title is an anachronism, and given the small size, a future nomination to upmerge the subcats of Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country would attract some support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Oregon Territory was not created until 1848. The Oregon Country categories for these should be used instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me as category creator, move accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aboutmovies: Deleting is something else than renaming. If you want to rename these categories you should clearly indicate what you propose as the new names, in the format:
Propose renaming Category:xxx to Category:yyy".
- Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already had the Oregon Country cats set up, and we do, but apparently not back into the 1830s. So, we just replace Territory with "Country": Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1838 in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 in Oregon Country; Category:1830s in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s in Oregon Country.
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 9 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting pings: @Aboutmovies, Marcocapelle, Jmabel, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- My view is as above. I consider that the annual categories are unlikely to get enough content to merit creation/retention. Perhaps when this is closed the 1832 and 1839 items can be nominated for merger, if that is the consensus. If so, perhaps we need them also to be merged to 183x in US territories or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish. I am not a great fan of establishment categories at the best of times. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but with "the". The nomination makes sense, but in my experience, "X Country" takes a "the". I always hear about "the Ohio Country", "the Illinois Country", and "the Oregon Country", and saying "wagon trains went to Oregon Country" is a usage error. I'm only interested in the name itself; no opinion on merging several categories into one. Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 30 March 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:POV (TV series) films[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. Consists of independent films that later showed as part of this stream. They were not produced for the stream. --woodensuperman 09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Satisfies WP:NONDEFINING because it is common practice to note what networks (and in this case, which documentary series of a network) which the film premiered - both in the home country and internationally. -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't common practice at all. We never do that. Star Trek: Discovery airs on Netflix worldwide, but it is a CBS show and only categorised as such. Only films that are specifically produced by/for a network (or "stream" in this case) would satisfy WP:NONDEFINING. --woodensuperman
You're pulling a debatable example out exactly because its a streaming series. Downton Abbey is categorized in both Category:ITV television dramas and Category:PBS network shows. This isn't controversial or unusual in the least, especially with PBS programs which pull from both sides of the pond. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PBS were instrumental in the production of Downton Abbey, so that is defining. If they weren't then it shouldn't be categorised as a PBS show. --woodensuperman 10:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that until you removed it just recently, one of our most popular and highly-edited articles Doctor Who has been categorized in Category:PBS network shows since 2007. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TVCATS: "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. Exceptions to this include co-productions (such as The 4400), or when a show changes networks during its original run." --woodensuperman 11:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not find it controversial to put an article for a documentary in a category for an award it was selected for. We also do the same for any film festivals it is selected for. So why would we not categorize it for a TV series it was selected for? These are all defining characteristics of a film. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because proportionately very few films/programmes get nominated for awards or selected for festivals, compared to the number of foreign markets they may be screened in. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If every programme shown in a secondary market was categorised as such, said categories would swamp their respective pages. This is especially the case where documentaries shown as part of one series in their home country are shown in different series in other countries. We can take the example of Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. When first shown in the UK, it was in BBC2's Arena series, which at the time was mainly composed of in-house BBC productions. It would be entirely inappropriate to categorise Dear America as a BBC programme, simply because they bought it and screen in within one of their own series. The same applies to documentaries shown in POV in the United States. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nick Cooper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • A show/film should only be included in a network or channel category if that was where it premiered. Second screening, syndication or any other type of secondary screening, should not have that item included in a category. That said, this seems like a different scenario, in that this is a TV series that each film consists of an "episode" of that series. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 19 March 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:Films by medium[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In a nutshell, this category is utterly nonsensical. The medium here has already been specified: FILM. I've already seen to it that the 2 subcats are in Category:Films by type, so no further work is required. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 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:Professional wrestling rosters[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 to Category:Lists of professional wrestling personnel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Changing name of category to match the pages within in. All were recently made consistent and category should match. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 19 March 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:Germanic countries and territories[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. Nearly every possible permutations of actions had some support.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, "Germanic" is not a defining characteristic of e.g. Austria or Denmark, nor was it a defining characteristic of e.g. the British Empire or the Swedish Empire, nor is it a defining characteristic of the culture of these countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Germanic countries and territories - Germanic heritage is the defining characteristic, according to scholarly sources, of several European countries. One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups by James Minahan states: "The Germans are an ancient ethnic group, the basic stock in the composition of the peoples of Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland, northern Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, north and central France, lowland Scotland, and England."[2] Minahan classifies Denmark and Austria (and several other countries) as Germanic nations.[3]
  • There is no denial that British or Austrian or Swedish people are Germanic-speaking peoples, the critical point is that e.g. the British Empire is not defined as a Germanic Empire. Please check WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the claim by the nominator regarding defining characteristics is contradicted by scholarly sources, the suggested deletions cannot possibly be a benefit to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a confusing comment because this nomination is not about Category:Germanic peoples. Let's for example take Austria. This country is not defined as a Germanic country in [11] or in [12] or in [13] or in [14]. An oppose vote should contain links in which Austria is defined as a Germanic country in a description of Austria (rather than in a description of Germanic). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that you cite mention Germanic not in the lede of the description of Austria, therefore is not a defining characteristic. Please note that we do not categorize by just any characteristic. About Bantu countries etc., while that is an WP:OSE argument, it is likely that you are right that the same may apply to other ethnolinguistic groups. I will dig into that further. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was merely mentioned in a subsection, not as a defining characteristic of the country. Besides it wouldn't surprise me if Bantu country is not a defining characteristic of South Africa either. (What about the Koisan?) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is not about notability but about definingness, i.e. whether this characteristic usually appears as one of the key characteristics of a country. It doesn't. Please check WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which neatly shows the nonsense involved in any ethnic classification on this scale (look at the genetic studies, and indeed the histories of the countries). So delete the countries one, as not needed, and the empires one. The other is a twig on a larger, & probably diseased, tree, & the whole tree should be taken in one go. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete countries and territories. What about countries with overlapping histories? Switzerland's simultaneously Germanic and Romance. France speaks a Romance language, but its indigenous people are Germanic. Many countries speak English despite having only a small percentage of people of English, German, etc. descent (consider Demographics of Jamaica#Ethnic groups or Demographics of Hong Kong for a couple of extreme examples), and the English-speaking USA has a massive percentage of individuals (including me) who are partly descended from Germanic people and partly from non-Germanic. Keep culture; you nominated a meta-category but not the subcategories, which makes no sense unless you're doing a trial nomination and planning to nominate the subcategories later. Unsure about empires. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 3 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the culture and the countries and territories; ambivalent on the empires. Whatever inclusion criteria for culture is inherently POV and subjective. Are Scottish culture and Irish culture non-Germanic, when the overwhelming majority of people in both places speak, write, and sing in English, a (mostly) Germanic language? Countries and territories, I agree with Nyttend. As for Empires, it seems that the imperial power being exerted was by Germanic peoples over mostly non-Germanic peoples; but Empires by who ethnically was in control seems useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 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:Foundation members of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the category tree. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OCASSOC. There are some learned societies where membership can be defining, but membership to this organization just takes a donation at this link and having to mail the donation when the group first started doesn't seem any more defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on my vague comment, I don't find being an initial member to be more defining enough than a current member to merit a category. All these articles are already well categorized in the Australian Environmentalist/Conservationist categories and most are in the United Tasmania Group/Tasmanian Green categories. (Some of the article are also not-so-well categorized loose in the parent category Category:Tasmanian Wilderness Society and also in the next parent category, Category:The Wilderness Society (Australia)). RevelationDirect (talk) 10:00, 23 March 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:Railway accident locations in Western 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category serve no purpose and is a case of over categorisation. There is no such category for any other state or country. Does not fit in category tree. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:48, 19 March 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:Public health education[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. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is Health education, though it is very USA biased. We may need a separate category for healthcare education, or something like, for the education of healthcare staff. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change no reason whatsoever provided as to why a change should be made. Public health education is a perfectly legitimate topic for a category: providing the public with education about health. Hmains (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category's scope seems to overlap with Category:Health promotion which is also about informing the general public about health issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most of the world Public health education is called Health education. That is why there is an article about one but not the other. Health promotion overlaps, but is distinct. And some of the articles need to be moved from one to the other. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For starters, the term "Public health education" is stunningly ambiguous. Is it "Public / health education" (i.e. educating the public about health) OR is it "Public health / education" (i.e. education about public health)?? So that has to go, no matter what.
But then there's the issue of overlapping contents. It's not just the 3 categories that have been mentioned here. After looking over the contents, I was thinking that we might want to create or rename to Category:Public health campaigns. Well guess what? We've already got Category:Health campaigns, which also overlaps with the other 3 categories. <sigh> I really think we need to sort this out more comprehensively before we decide how to proceed. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should delay one (obvious) merger because perhaps more merging is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health campaigns can, just about, be distinguished from Health education. Campaigns are generally related to some particular medical condition, or sometimes to some specific threat to health such as a pollution problem. Health education is generally about keeping people healthy in a wider sense. But it is all a bit fussy and I wouldn't object to merging all three if we can come up with a suitable title. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Public health in UK is run by local authorities and health by NHS. These are related, but not identical subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The management of public health in England has changed several times, but I dont see how that is relevant. This is a global category. We are supposed to follow the name of the main article. There isnt an article on Public health education. Providing the public with education about health is, in the business, referred to as health education. It is generally provided by public health staff. They also do health promotion and run health campaigns. I'm not sure that it's helpful to try to distinguish the three. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categorisation in this area is impeded by the unhelpful appropriation by medical businesses of the broader term health, of which medicine is in reality only a small subset. Sadly, much that polluted terminology has been adopted for en.wp categories, leading to a lot of confusion.
Public health is a distinct topic. It differs from medicine by its focus on population groups rather than in individuals, and by its embrace of the whole range of non-individualised factors which influence health: housing, poverty, environment, pollution, diet, etc. Losing the distinction would be a great disservice to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl's point, but I dont see this proposal as part of the issue which concerns her. Neither Category:Public health education nor Category:Health education are concerned with medicine in any direct way. They are two names for the same thing. I dont see any health education which is not public health education. The article is Health education because that is what it is called by public health practitioners. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder, medical training is a form of health education.
Training sanitary engineers is a form of health education.
Training food industrial food safety is a form of health education.
Educating public health inspectors is a form of health education.
Etc.
And none of those is Public health education. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that is what the article Health education says. Though it is a very poor article, it is reasonably clear in its definition of the field. There is a distinction between education and training for professionals, leading to qualifications and education of the public, leading to behaviour change. There is clearly a relation between the two but the training you list is not generally described as health education.[1] Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether Medical education is part of Health education. As Rathfelder says, the article does not suggest so. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Health education". WHO. Retrieved 27 March 2019.
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:Asian-American novels[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, mostly because of uncertainty about what the current titles are trying to convey. The fuzziness of the category titles here seems to be matched by the nationality categories, e.g. Category:British novels. Does the adjective "British" refer to the topic/setting, the author, or the place of publication? An RFC might help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to make sure it is clear. Although I have my doubts about all of these being actual things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC
  • Oppose. I notice that these categories are currently subcategories of, say, Category:Pakistani-American culture through Category:Pakistani-American literature. What troubles me with the nomination is that it implies that we would then have Pakistani/Japanese/Filipino-American authors, which I do not think would be right. We currently only have only descent categories, many of which are borderline according to WP:OCEGRS. If someone is Pakistani-American and writes books, do they necessarily convey a Pakistani-American theme? Can they not be about computing, crime, love, life and everything, and does this make them part of Hyphen-American culture? Similarly, do you need to be Italian to open an Italian-American restaurant? I don't think so. The scope of these categories are not the same, and novels are better classified by theme or sub-genre (or not at all) than by perceived ethnicity of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Place Clichy has an excellent point. We might even consider renaming the categories in an entirely differently direction, to e.g. Category:Novels about Asian-American culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the solution suggested by User:Marcocapelle. This solution may then be extended to the rest of Category:American novels by ethnic background, probably in a new nomination citing this one as reference if it is successful. Also note mother Category:Novels about race and ethnicity: the topic here is clearly the theme of the novel and not the ascendancy of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HandsomeFella and Johnpacklambert: what is your opinion about the latter part of the discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good idea. The articles in the respective categories may need some checking to verify that the proposed theme is really the context. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the rename to culture, but with a clear review to make sure all the works belong at the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while there is a Culture of Asian Americans, there are sub-cultures of the different ethnicities which make up the pan-ethnic Asian American definition, given the different histories of the different Asian American ethnicities.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual split (with partial overlap) between "Novels by X authors" and "Novels about X culture". We have two different parent categories with very different purposes. I think both the Category:American novels by ethnic background and Category:Novels about race and ethnicity trees have encyclopedic merit. There is substantial academic writing about the stylistic differences between writers of different races and ethnicities, even when they are writing on topics unrelated to race and ethnicity. That clearly passes WP:OCEGRS. I would not want to get rid of a perfectly valid set of categories that allows exploration of such a topic just because we have a separate partially-but-not-completely-overlapping useful category. I don't see WP:OVERLAPCAT as an issue here, given the diversity of topics that authors from any given ethnicity may write on. Pinging earlier participants to consider this possibility. @HandsomeFella, Johnpacklambert, Place Clichy, Marcocapelle, and RightCowLeftCoast: ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment: That's absolutely a possibility. We need to go through the articles manually anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not convinced of the merit of categorizing of novels of ethnic authors together if they do not contain a strong ethnic theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps if the author is notable enough, they should have a category for their novels (especially if they have at least a have dozen notable novels), and that category can be subcategorized under Novels by x ethnicity authors. Just my 2 cents.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, a notable novel may be written by an individual who is of an Asian American ethnicity, but that does not mean that that novel is about the culture which that author is a member of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, request for closure of the discussion posted on the administrators noticeboard. 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 January 2 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are by-nationality categories. In this discussion it is about ethnicity, that is something else. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If an American author of Pakistani heritage writes a novel about Pakistan or people of Pakistani heritage in US, it might fall within the category, but if it is a novel about US in which the author's heritage or descent is insignificant, then the book/author should merely be categorised as American. I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 24 March 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:Kidnapping in Islamism[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 to Category:Islamism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose, only impedes navigation. This issue was discussed at CFD 5 years ago, but the closer and some editors seem not to have grasped the fact that the subcat Category:Kidnappings by Islamists does the job very nicely on its own without this superfluous category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 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:Expatriates by country of residence[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In our article on expatriate (immigrant just redirects to immigration) it is noted those two terms are pretty much synonyms. Those are duplicate logical trees, and many biographies are tagged with one, the other, or both, pretty randomly. If someone is an 'Expatriates in Fooland' they are at the same time 'immigrant to Fooland'. We cannot be certain how long they will stay there. I will note that one could argue that expatriate is temporary and immigrant, a permanent status of change, but let's remember categories are for defining characteristics. Living for a few years (months? weeks?) in another country is unlikely to be defining in the long run. Some articles about sportspeople are tagged as expatriates in Fooland after an individual has just signed a contract moving there; there are some sportspeople who worked in several countries, each for few months - are we supposed to categorize people each time they move for few months? Mr. X was an expat in a dozen countries? Is this relevant? Not that sportspeople are the only type of a biography that is affected. We should just have one category for people living in another country (and immigrant is a more popular term that covers both temporary and permanent cases). Let me repeat: recording people's living location, which can be just a few month long, should not be a defining characteristic that is categorized. PS. There's also a technical issue as the number of notable expats in given subcategory is not stable and can occasionally reach zero (as for example someone classified as a temporary expat dies, is reclassified as a permanent immigrant, and what if this empties the category? Will it be deleted?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - expatriate and immigrant are not synonymous; the first is temporary (eg sportspeople and diplomats) and the second is permanent. Eg Ronaldo has not emigrated to Italy and applied for Italian citizenship as far as I know. I share some of the noms concerns about expatriate subcats but this merge is not the answer. Oculi (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, this nomination is pointless. It would remove only one container category, whilst leaving in place the parent Category:Expatriates, the sibling Category:Expatriates by nationality, and several hundred subcategories. That just impedes naviagtion without recategorisng a single biography.
Substantively, I agree with per Oculi. The boundary can be fuzzy, but the concepts are distinct: expatriates are temporary migrants, while immigrants are permanent migrants.
Also the nominator's rationale is self-contradictory: complaining that all expats are really immigrants, and then complaining that some people are categorised as expats despite not spending long in the destination country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the real difference that expatriates are rich and immigrants are poor? The UK expats in Spain seem to have gone their permanently, but, at least in the UK, they are not referred to as emigrants. I would, however agree that temporary residence in a country, as is common with footballers and diplomats, is not defining and that those ex-pat subcategories, of which there are hundreds, should be deleted. NB I suspect many are generated by templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder, that rich=expat/poor=immigrant formulation does seem to be the case in current English political debates about human migration. But I am not sure that the current state of English politics is much of a guide to anything other than the current state of English politics.
On WP:DEFININGness, it seems to me that which country a diplomat served in is one of the most defining attributes of their career. It is way more significant than their places of education or the honours which British diplomats collect routinely whenever they pass "Go".
As to sportspeople, the definingness is more varied. In some cases it is a central issue, where as in others it is quite trivial. I have done a lot of work on expat sportspeople categories, and I don't recall a single case of one of the categories being populated by a template. However neatly all of the "Fooian expatriate sportspeople in somewhere" cats are formed by {{Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar cat}}, which I created to reduce errors and to help the removal of the flood of expat sportspeople from the parent non-sporting cats which they overwhelmed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I havent done any work on these categories since you created the template, and I dont have strong views about this, other than a worry that we are in the process of creating 40,000 categories. But the distinction between immigrants and expatriates is entirely subjective. Many people move to another country thinking they will go home and dont, others go thinking they are moving permanently but do go home. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - expatriates and immigrants are two rather different things, namely that immigrants are more permanent and sometimes take up citizenship and expatriates are usually temporary residents for work and almost never take up citizenship. Not only that but if this category is deleted or moved something will have to be done with the hundreds of categories contained here. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can only tell if migration is temporary at the end of it. And our biographical articles very rarely say anything about the nationality or citizenship status of migrants. I quite agree that this whole area is a bit of a mess. Only the diplomats and footballers can clearly be seen as expatriates. Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a mess, @Rathfelder. There are many other types of biog where expat status can be readily distinguished from emigration: academics, clergy, corporate staff etc, all often migrate for short periods.
Sure, there are plenty of fuzzy cases, but mostly in those who are still alive. On the basis of the categories I have studied, I'd say that maybe 5–15% are in they zone. In the case of sportspeople, nationality is often fuzzier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for procedural reasons. As noted above, there's no good reason to get rid of a container category when it has plenty of extant subcategories. But if you'd nominate the national subcategories, I would support getting rid of them. If "expatriate" and "immigrant" have meanings that are essentially the same, what's the point of separate categories? And if there are significant differences in meaning, how do you define when an expatriate becomes an immigrant or when an immigrant becomes an expatriate? The only really clear case is when you're migrating for short periods (you're an expatriate but not an immigrant), and in that case, why categorise at all? If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium — what's the shortest time of residence in a place to qualify? If you spend ten years migrating from country to country, living in each one for a month, you will have lived in 120 countries; there's no good reason to give your article 120 categories, and categories that only apply for short periods of time (e.g. if we'd apply it only for where you are now, so we must change the category each month as you move) are a fundamentally bad idea, since categories should be based on what you are, not what you happen to be doing at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 28 March 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:Multi-touch mobile phones[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Practically all mobile phones manufactured in the last 10 years feature multi-touch. The category is doomed to incompleteness without a hope. uKER (talk) 06:56, 19 March 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:Kansas Sports Hall of Fame[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. The lone keep vote didn't address the WP:SMALLCAT issue.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:SMALLCAT or WP:OCAWARD
Today the category only has one article, Kansas Sports Hall of Fame. It's not clear if the category intended to be a museum article (in which there's no room for growth) or an award category (in which case it's non-defining). The athletes are already listed here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background In the past, we've deleted similar US state-level sports halls of fame categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The main article says it is a museum. The consensus reached some years ago was that if a "Hall of Fame" is a physical museum we should allow existence. If not it is an award, where no category is allowed. The normal format is for inductees to be categorised - rename and repurpose? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Wichita was about to evict the group from their stand-alone museum location when a local businessperson stepped up to by letting them move a few of their exhibits to a wedding/reception hall he owned (source). It looks like they're now located at the edge of a dining hall or dance floor (see pictures here). In addition to my concerns about such a standard not following WP:OCAWARD, I also see a maintence issue as we delete and recreate categories based on whether a minor league ballpark or city hall let these small museums use their lobby to show off a couple physical display cases. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 25 March 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:Web shells[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, and lacking amount of significance between those two. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 19 March 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:Eddie Murphy[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 00:43, 19 March 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:Greta Garbo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Category:Greta Garbo

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19&oldid=896040286"