Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

March 25[edit]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after Presidents of Czechoslovakia[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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia categories named after something are supposed to be hidden Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Rathfelder wants to remove this type of category, they should make a group nomination of Category:Wikipedia categories named after people and all its subcats. But I see no case for deleting just this one and keeping the the the rest of the series.
If Rathfelder wants the category to be hidden, then he can simply tag it with {{Hidden category}}. There is no need to delete a category as an alternative to tagging it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hide. The 2 things are completely different (one is a category of categories and the other a set category of articles on presidents, or at least it should be). I have hidden it: one adds {{Wikipedia category|hidden=yes}} at the top. Oculi (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hide. Note however that most of the subcategories have been nominated for deletion here and here as ineligible per WP:OCEPON. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you BHG. I couldnt work out how to make a category hidden. I dont specially want to delete it, so I will withdraw this nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2020 (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.

Womens sports by year[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
45 more "Years in women's Foo" categories
Nominator's rationale: to align the convention of Category:Women's sport by year with the "Foo by year" convention of its parent Category:Sport by year, and indeed of most of other by-year container categories for non-geographical topics.
The convention for by-year container categories is "Years in Foo" for places (countries, continents, counties, states, cities etc), but "foo by year" for other topics ... because people don't live in boxing or cricket or arts or medicine or radio or religion, so we have:
I think this is speediable per WP:C2C. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 25 March 2020 (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:CIA fabrications[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not adhere to neutral point of view. Additionally it's only current contents, the WMD controversy, was not solely due to the CIA and also includes a bunch of articles on very real subjects. GPL93 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Category:FBI fabrications. This nomination should have been put together with that cat as it is very clear that the nominator take issue wth the cats. As I stated there: Sorry but there has been many instances throughout the history of the FBI (as well as the CIA) where they have fabricated things in order to advance their racist or political agenda in the interest of the United States government. Our wider community of readers would find it helpful to locate such articles via our cat system. I do not agree with the nominator's recommendation for renaming to "Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies." Using the word "controversies" does not tell us anything. Its is too broad and generic. "Fabrications" however, is more specific. I'm sure our readers would find it much easier to locate relevant articles than going through a bundle of articles using "controversy" cat. Another way of doing it is to have both categories, with "Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies" as the parent category. I however believe that FBI fabrications merits a stand alone cat of its own. The term "controversies" is vague and does not specificly describe why it is a controversy. Our readership would find it easier to locate articles under this heading. Are you seriously telling me, the American government has not used its agencies such as the FBI and CIA for decades to fabricate things for its own benefit? They have done it during the Civil Rights Movement, they have done it during the Cold War, during World War, and during the Iranqi War. Must I remind you about weapons of mass destruction? The American govenment have used its agencies for decades to fabricate and tell lies. It is absolutely important that relevant articles are easily identifiable rather than going through a maze under the controversy cat. We cannot use the argument of "neutrality" just because it about the United States. We do have Category:Neo-Nazis and similar, so why should we make exceptions for the United States and/or its agencies who have been involved in fabrication and corruption? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious POV magnet, possible BLP consequences if real people were stuck into such a vaguely and hostiley defined category. Senegambianamestudy, there is absolutely place on Wikipedia for criticism of the CIA, but this isn't it, and I don't think "fabrications" are what you really want anyway. ( Also, it's nitpicky, but it was the FBI not the CIA that messed with the 50s/60s civil rights movement.) SnowFire (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, POV and OR magnet. Specifically, most of topics alleged to be CIA or FBI fabrication at some point will probably never be recognized as such with strong certainty, and this certainty would be necessary to consider this characteristic as DEFINING enough for Wikipedia categorization, per our guidelines. As a result, most of content added to such a category would be added at the whim and depending on the point of view or bias of the editor. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Place Clichy. Note that the creator, Senegambianamestudy, is indefinitely blocked after calling editors white supremacists and making it explicitly clear that he thinks we are infiltrated by same. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I created + populated the more appropriate category Category:Central Intelligence Agency controversies. buidhe 02:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently empty but I would have expected to see the real-life American equivalent of what Q cooks up for James Bond. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now empty. Delete -- Did Buidhe empty it into his new category out of process? If so, please administer a rap over the knuckles. The right course sometimes is when the outcome is clear or agreed to add new target categories to all articles, but this is normally only appropriate where a category needs splitting. I would have expected the category actually to be about fabrications (myths) about CIA or things they have fabricated. I would support the controversies outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2020 (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:FBI fabrications[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very narrowly construed and naming may not adhere to neutral point of view. Maybe rename to something along the lines of "Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies"? While there is a list I'm surprised a category doesn't exist already given the FBI's many controversial actions and outright wrongdoings throughout its history. GPL93 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sorry but there has been many instances throughout the history of the FBI (as well as the CIA) where they have fabricated things in order to advance their racist or political agenda in the interest of the United States government. Our wider community of readers would find it helpful to locate such articles via our cat system. I do not agree with the nominator's recommendation for renaming to "Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies." Using the word "controversies" does not tell us anything. Its is too broad and generic. "Fabrications" however, is more specific. I'm sure our readers would find it much easier to locate relevant articles than going through a bundle of articles using "controversy" cat. Another way of doing it is to have both categories, with "Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies" as the parent category. I however believe that FBI fabrications merits a stand alone cat of its own. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles themselves are almost entirely about the controversies surrounding them. Secondly, how do we distinguish what is and is not a fabrication? No matter how wrong it was, BIE was an official classification based on at least a few specific criteria based on whatetever misguided research they conducted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "controversies" is vague and does not specificly describe why it is a controversy. Our readership would find it easier to locate articles under this heading. Are you seriously telling me, the American government has not used its agencies such as the FBI and CIA for decades to fabricate things for its own benefit? They have done it during the Civil Rights Movement, they have done it during the Cold War, during World War, and during the Iranqi War. Must I remind you about weapons of mass destruction? The American govenment have used its agencies for decades to fabricate and tell lies. It is absolutely important that relevant articles are easily identifiable rather than going through a maze under the controversy cat. We cannot use the argument of "neutrality" just because it about the United States. We do have Category:Neo-Nazis and similar, so why should we make exceptions for the United States and/or its agencies who have been involved in fabrication and corruption? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is generally about controversy surrounding the lies. Whether or not it is about the United States (or any nation's) government or not, neutrality is important. I don't understand the Neo-Nazi argument as that is a very large and encompassing category with broad parameters.
  • Delete - POV-pushing editorialization at its worst, should probably be speedily deleted per G10. The use of the term is unsupported by reliable sources in the relevant article. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm I've tagged both POV-pushing categories for speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To the extent that there is useful information (e.g. backed up by reliable sources) here, it makes more sense to incorporate it into the body of the article with the appropriate weight. A category doesn't make sense when there are no sources that group them together. Michepman (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, POV and OR magnet. Specifically, as for above, most of topics alleged to be CIA or FBI fabrication at some point will probably never be recognized as such with strong certainty, and this certainty would be necessary to consider this characteristic as DEFINING enough for Wikipedia categorization, per our guidelines. As a result, most of content added to such a category would be added at the whim and depending on the point of view or bias of the editor. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a note I have created the more appropriate Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation controversies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category created by the same user as the one above, blocked for far-left polemics like accusations of white supremacy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • now empty. Delete -- see comments on equivalent CIA category (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2020 (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:Bisexual community[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, with only two articles and two subcategories this category layer does not add much value. Besides the two articles can probably be moved to Category:Bisexual culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It seems duplicative and I don't see any nuance being added here. Michepman (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2020 (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:Foreign-born Confederates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 18#Category:Foreign-born Confederates

Category:Little Women[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:Works based on Little Women Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article - List of accolades received by Little Women film, which seems to fit happily into the parent category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (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:Concert tours cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[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: withdrawn. It turns out that another category for postponed concert tours already exists, so I'm withdrawing this and submitting a new merger proposal instead. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category. While all of the concert tours filed here have certainly been affected by the hellscape upon us, as of right now I'm not aware of any artist who has simply cancelled their entire tour outright -- across the board, the tours here have simply had some of their planned dates postponed rather than permanently cancelled. Of course, it certainly remains possible that some of them will never happen again -- e.g. if the artist dies before the pandemic has subsided -- but it would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation to assume that we know what's going to happen in the future: as far as we know today, all of these tours will resume again once things are under control. Accordingly, they should be categorized as "impacted" or "postponed" rather than "cancelled". Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other new titles can be suggested, if anybody's got a better idea. But "cancelled" is simply and unacceptably incorrect, because none of these tours have been permanently and irrevocably cancelled, and is thus not an appropriate name for the category. That said, it's just come to my attention that there's already a separate category for concert tours postponed by the coronavirus pandemic, so I'm withdrawing my original proposal and replacing it with a merger proposal. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (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:Members of Montgomery County Council[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. MER-C 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match corresponding page name. TM 13:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I've corrected the nomination.--18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
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:Hypothetical civilizations[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without prejudice for re-creation if more hypothetical civilizations are identified. The only article Silurian hypothesis would definitely belong in the target. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge though I am not wholly happy with a speculative thought experiment appearing with scientific hypothesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2020 (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:Books by Gilbert Herdt[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: Withdrawn/keep Crossroads -talk- 15:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains a single article. Category is therefore of no use, as there are no other articles to navigate to. (The author's article is of course linked at the book's article.) I checked the article on Gilbert Herdt and see no other books of his have articles that could be added to the category. Crossroads -talk- 03:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is mistaken. He is presenting the same false reasoning that led me to nominate Category:Books by Tom O'Carroll for deletion back in 2019. The result was a very short discussion that led to the category being kept. See here. Issues in this discussion are identical. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the 'unless' clause of WP:SMALLCAT (part of Category:Books by writer), and 100s of similar cfds. Oculi (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm withdrawing it then. I was absolutely not expecting WP:SMALLCAT to allow any categories with one page and I still see zero utility in such categories. However, this is not the place to address that. Crossroads -talk- 15:21, 25 March 2020 (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/2020_March_25&oldid=951731949"