Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3[edit]

Category:Honorary citizens of Hamburg[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Rudolf Augstein).  Note: The list may need to be upmerged. See CFD for similar Munich category.  I also intend (if this closes as delete) to empty and CSD the similar Vienna category (which just contains a list). DexDor (talk) 21:06, 3 May 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:Welsh legendary characters[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: split to people and characters. I propose to add descriptions to distinguish the categories of characters as for individuals, and categories of creatures as including articles on what might be called "species". However, this may be arguable, in which case I suggest starting a further discussion at WT:Folklore. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The legendary people hierarchy is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are "people". The category is underpopulated right now btw. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The vast majority are people. Those that aren't would be better in categories for legendary creatures. Those that are people should be connected to the heirarchy of Fooish people as some of them are, or might be, actual people.Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very good point. People and creatures are quite different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into people and characters per previous contributions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into creatures and people. I don't understand when or if a person becomes a 'character'. We appear to already have 'legendary people' and 'legendary creatures' category trees. 'Characters' is unnecessary and confusing. I guess this is qualified support, though the whole 'Legendary' and 'Folklore' hierarchy probably needs reorganising. Sionk (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A character isn't the same as either a "person" or "creature". If we take for instance, to use a fictional character, Hal 9000; they are not a person as most would define a person (as a human being) nor is he a creature, which implies a race of beings (which is a 9000-series computer the same as Hal's sibling SAL 9000), the same goes for the folkloric Puck, who isn't a human being, but also is a singular character rather than a race of creatures, like say elves or goblins (though Puck may be an individual belonging to the race of elves). Aka a character is singular entity like syaing Mr. Zog is a character but as a creature he is an Oompliff. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what a computer-character has to do with legends. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish fiction from legends in this discussion. The whole point of legends is that some people think, or thought, they were real. Rathfelder (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the articles in Indian legendary characters are about people, as are the British legendary characters. But some of the articles in Category:English legendary characters dont fit happily into the category of people or creatures. Are giants and ghosts people? Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Personhood - Anthropology - Oxford Bibliographies - obo". www.oxfordbibliographies.com.
  2. ^ De Craemer, Willy. “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personhood.” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, vol. 61, no. 1, 1983, pp. 19–34., www.jstor.org/stable/3349814.
  3. ^ Christian Smith. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford University Press
  4. ^ Carrithers, Michael, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds. 1985. The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
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:Rulers who died as children[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: do not rename. MER-C 10:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A combination of Category:Child deaths and Category:Child rulers. wumbolo ^^^ 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That shifts the focus from the person to the death. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the current name correctly says what the category is about, the proposed name is unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The present name is clear. They will all be rulers subject to a guardian (or regent), who thus did not actually hold the reins of power. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 5 May 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:Cars powered by rear-mounted 5-cylinder engines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:Cars powered by rear-mounted 5-cylinder engines

Category:Atheist YouTubers[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. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. There certainly are a fair share of atheist and irreligious personalities online, but looking through this category more than half of the subjects of the articles included had very little if anything to do with atheism or secularism on their YouTube channels. They just appear to be atheist/irreligious and have a YouTube channel, both of which are pretty common in the millennial age. It is not uncommon now for individuals and organizations to share their views on YouTube, and categories such as these open a can of worms of what other things can be linked to YouTubers. Inter&anthro (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, do they really comment on atheism? Or do they comment on religion? From what I have seen in this category, it is mostly the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The issue is that they criticize religion, that is quite an important aspect of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles that do bellong (i.e. YouTubers whose content has a clear connection with atheism and critism of religion): Pat Condell, Sherif Gaber, TJ Kirk, Phil Mason, Aron Ra, Gad Saad, Sam Harris
  • On the fence about: Cenk Uygur, Alonso Duralde, Ana Kasparian, and in general those affiliated with The Young Turks, as they are all strongly irreligious and/or atheist but the group is more dedicated to journalism and progressivism than anything else, Amos Yee who is an atheist but is far better known for being a critic of the censhorship laws in Singapore and his more recent defence of pedophilia, ContraPoints whose intial videos were about atheism but whose channel is now almost entirely dedicated to rebucking alt-right, fascist, libertarian arguements. Laci Green, whose content is more about gender identity and sex education. Kyle Kulinski a critic of religion but whose channel is more about promoting liberal arguments.
  • Articles that do not belong (atheist views are larely trivial in relation to YouTube careers): Korey Coleman (some relation, but mostly an animator), Adam22 (podcaster and hip-hop internet personality), Philip DeFranco, Anthony Fantano, Hank Green, Charlie McDonnell (vlogger), Onision, PewDiePie (gammer, internet personality), Social Repose (musician), SethBling (gammer), Aziz Shavershian (body builder) etc.
  • Others: Cara Santa Maria, clear conection with atheism, but while she has appeared on YouTube there is not much to suggest that she mantains a regular YouTube channel. Not everyone who has a personal YouTube channel is a "YouTuber" as almost all musicians and politicians usually have some sort of YouTube channel or media outlet associated with them.
  • These are only my thoughts, I personally still don't think that this category is notable enough to be kept, but if it is as I wrote above I would strongly recomend a rename. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While earlier on I advocated a rename, I would not mind if the category would be deleted either. It appears to be a very problematic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 3 July 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:Failed assassination attempt survivors[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 to delete this time, so rename to Category:Survivors of assassination attempts. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Failed assassination attempts and Category:Survivors of terrorist attacks, I don't think we really need this one. Le Deluge (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - You might want to reconsider & withdraw this proposal, as it makes no sense at all to conflate assassination with terrorism. [See below for my Rename proposal.] Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed - why does it make no sense? The Terrorism article explicitly cites the Persian Order of Assassins as one of the earliest examples of terrorism, and 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" as including "[affecting] the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping". Assassination is not just random murder, it is murder designed to intimidate political opponents - to terrorise them. Le Deluge (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I only had time for a short comment, or I would have addressed the issue at greater length. Yes, of course, there is an intersection between assassination and terrorism. But that does not mean that they are one and the same thing. If we followed your line of thought to its logical conclusion it would lead to merging the master/parent categories for assassination and terrorism. Surely you're not proposing that. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - only because I disagree with the proposed redirect. Renaming this category something like Political office-holders who survived attempted assassination (as a Subcategory of Political office-holders) would be a more suitable change. Drdpw (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That overlooks the fact that not all of these people were "Political office-holders" or even Politicians. Case in point: I just added musician Bob Marley to the category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Anomalous+0. Not all assassinations are terrorism, and I note that "terrorism" is a very problematic term where you can find quite a range of definitions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:Survivors of failed assassinations (or "assassination attempts", if absolutely necessary). This is consistent with the other subcats of Category:Survivors, where all of the multi-word categories use the form "Survivors of xx yy zz". Only the very short ones use the form "Xyz survivors".Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalous+0; Agree, except the name Category:Survivors of failed assassinations contains redundancy. It seems to differentiate from Category:Survivors of of successful assassinations. Technically, Category:Assassination survivors would be sufficient, but I'd settle for Category:Survivors of assassination attempts as some may think it doesn't qualify as an actual assassination if no one dies. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category is problematic, but the proposed merge target is very inappropriate, because assassination attempts are not always terrorist in nature. (e.g. John Hinckley's attempt to impress Jodie Foster) –Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Survivors of assassination attempts. Assassination tends to be directed against a specific individual. Terrorism is indiscriminate, designed to sow fear into people generally. These are different things (though related). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, that would be the same thing as the category deleted last year (see CFD linked above). DexDor (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had not spotted that, but I do not think it makes a difference. I am far from sure whether some of the content merits inclusion, but that is a matter for pruning not deleting. For example Dreyfus is notable for suffered unjust imprisonment, rather than an assassination attempt. However I continue to maintain that assassination is something more specific than plain terrorism, thought that may have grown out of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and Rename. Oppose merge because terrorism can be quite different from assassination. Rename because how is "Failed assassination attempt survivors" different from "Assassination attempt survivors"? "Failed" is redundant with "attempt survivor", and sounds like a joke title. They tried to survive, but failed, so accidentally died even though the assassination was only attempted? --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with A D Monroe III, the current name begs the question: how many people did not survive failed assassination attempts? Right after they were given the antidote to the poison, they tripped on an electrical cord and fell out the window... Or they were wannabe assassination attempt survivors, but failed because nobody would agree to attempt to assassinate them? I would definitely be in that category then! If only there was a Wikipedia article about me. Damn. --IamNotU (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my current preferred rename is to Category:Survivors of assassination attempts. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Would Category:Assassination attempt survivors be slightly better? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both are fine titles. Most other categories dealing with survivors are named "Survivors of X", not "X survivors", so that Category:Survivors of assassination attempts gets an edge for consistency. — JFG talk 21:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll go with renaming to Category:Survivors of assassination attempts. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:25, 10 June 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:BNP Members of the London Assembly[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 since there is nothing left to merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category will only ever have one entry. Emeraude (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that we do have the likes of Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full upmerge This is usually the best way of dealing with miniscule categories incapable of expansion. It will result in an article in what would normally be a container category, but does that really matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, pointless having these tiny categories. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No upmerge necessary because the category has been emptied in the meantime. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 11 May 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.

Parishes of Latvia by district[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 after merging the subcategories — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, subdividing current second level administrative subdivisions by former first level administrative subdivisions is just weird. The districts of Latvia were abolished in 2009. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine a reader who would find this helpful. Certainly an original form of WP:OCLOCATION. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete top one, merge the rest per nom. The districts were subdivided into municipalities, so there is no scope to rename/merge to categories for the new divisions. However, if any editor is willing to manually set up the new hierarchy, I would give them time to work from this set, and then manually delete these when empty. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 4 May 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:Canadian Football 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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (Canadian Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (Category:Canadian Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 5 May 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:Scottish Football 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: merge. MER-C 10:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
No conceptual objection to a museum/organisational category but this category contains nothing but the the main article (Scottish Football Hall of Fame) and the inductees subcategory (Category:Scottish Football Hall of Fame inductees). I can't think of another potential direct article so growth potential seems limited but no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. (Note that this nomination does not impact the biography articles in the "inductees" subcategory.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted several similar underpopulated hall of fame parent categories here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per previous discussion (event though I disagree with it). GiantSnowman 09:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or upmerge) -- I am not sure that we need the inductees subcat, as if offends OCAWARD, but we certainly do not need this parent for it. The main article will make a good one for the subcat and so will not be orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 5 May 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:São José dos Campos Futebol Clube[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club changed name to the proposed name in October 2017. MYS77 ✉ 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 08:03, 4 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_3&oldid=905660809"