Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28[edit]

Category:American progressive Muslims[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. MER-C 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion, there is no definition of what constitutes a "progressive Muslim" and therefore inclusion in this category is arbitrary and could potentially be considered highly controversial. User:Namiba 18:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, they're all already in subcategories.--User:Namiba 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think for example Reza Aslan isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently defined to categorize people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was thinking of nominating this category myself for sometime. This is just a catch all category for people who identify as Muslim and endorse political positions that are viewed as left-wing. There is no denomination or occupation that concretely defines someone as "progressive", and this category seems dangerously like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:55, 5 June 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:Categorized redirects[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) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not used; there is a lot more of such redirects and I don't think collecting them is any useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently created this hidden tracking category; while not complete today, I plan to continue populating it until complete, requesting help from one or more bots with completing the task. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you decide not to create an rcat template? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little different: I am trying to capture redirects that, appropriately, fall into categories that mostly contain articles. That said, I would not be averse to using an Rcat template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why should we care if a redirect is in an article category or not? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will be an easy way to scan the appropriateness of such categorizations. I understood that a hidden maintenance cat was given some leeway if an experienced editor found it useful and it was otherwise not problematic, UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 23:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears (from looking at what-links-here) to be no documented workflow using this category. It is probably fundamentally misguided; if you want a list of redirects that are in article categories use Petscan. Incomplete (and probably pointless) infrastructure like this clutters and complicates Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how exactly would one identify "article categories" in order to use Petscan as you suggest? I was not aware that "clutter" was a problem for Wikipeda. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:41, 28 May 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:Nationstate army branch headquarters[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:National army headquarters. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is too long. "Category:Army headquarters" is sufficient for the intended members. Sildemund (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/explanation: The current title was carefully chosen so that one one single headquarters, for a nationstate's entire land forces, could be placed in the category. Any and all headquarters of a state's land forces branch could be placed in the category if the name was changed to 'Army headquarters,' including any articles, for example for 'Headquarters United States First Army.' It's also not too long - WP has some very long category names.
So Oppose for the reasons listed above. Happy to consider any alternate category names that mean only one HQ is included. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the comment. I agree the category should be for national headquarters. Could this be achieved by adding a head note? Sildemund (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the category is clear anyway, and the current category name does not help clarifying this further at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My original aim was to distinguish as clearly as possible between the sole headquarters of a nation state's land forces, almost always in the capital, and the individual, multiple field army headquarters/field armies in the field. In my view, "National army headquarters" could still mean Army HQs in the field, and it does not properly address states with many nations, eg. Ethiopia, where there's many nations (see for example Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region, one of the nine ethnically based regional entities of Ethiopia). Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can distinguish nationality from ethnicity you will be able to explain it to the entire political science profession. They're often one and the same in general terms. Are not Poles or Japanese in the United States nationalities? There are many, many, nationstates that have multiple nations within them - the Soviet Union was brought down, in part, by what was called 'the nationalities question'.
  • There is no Polish or Japanese nationality in the United States except for e.g. expatriates. Other than that there are people of Polish or Japanese descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples? All of them in that category: Army Command (Denmark); not, definitely not, any hypothetical First / Second / Third Danish Armies; General Headquarters (Pakistan Army), which should be distinguished from any Western or Eastern Armies the Pakistanis might form; GOC Army Headquarters, which would definitely should be distinguished from any HQ First / Second etc Israeli Armies; Kommando Landstreitkräfte, to be distinguished from any First / Second / whatever East German Armies; etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you all so objecting to the word 'branch' which denotes the difference between service branches? If you take out the word 'branch' or simile people will start putting field armies into the category, with or without looking at the headnote. If people are looking for an alternative, what about 'Nation state army branch headquarters' or 'State army branch headquarters'- the important thing is the Sovereign state - this nation business is a bit of a red herring. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is partly because we do not have many articles which are called "army branch" about specific country armies. Thus, we have an article at United States Army and not United States Army Branch. Could we not have a hatnote about which pages should be in this category and a separate Category:Field army headquarters? Sildemund (talk) 11:08, 1 June 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:American schoolteachers by location[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. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this discussion where the target name was suggested. Cited advantages of this name are that it is more precise that the current name, as it specifically refers to first-level subdivisions and not e.g. cities or counties (as in Category:American people by location), but that it does not leave Category:Schoolteachers from Washington, D.C. and Category:Guamanian schoolteachers stranded out.
Note that by state or territory is used e.g. for Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States, American culture by state or territory, Politics of the United States by state or territory (and subcategories Elections, Political events, Political history, Political scandals, Protests), Environment of the United States by state or territory, Events in the United States by state or territory, Disease-related deaths in the United States by state or territory, United States portals by state or territory etc. It is also used for similar categories of Australia (Categories by state or territory of Australia), of Canada (Categories by province or territory of Canada) or of India (Categories by state or union territory of India).
Note also this previous relevant July 2019 CfD were some U.S. categories were already renamed to by state or territory.
@UnitedStatesian, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Rathfelder, BrownHairedGirl, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Hmains, Bibliomaniac15, GoldRingChip, DexDor, Number 57, Eureka Lott, Grutness, Googol30, *Treker, Timrollpickering, and Bearcat: pinging contributors to the previous discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, provided that:
  1. "by state or territory" is agreed to include DC
  2. Category:American schoolteachers by location is re-created after the move, as part of what should be a series under Category:American people by location and occupation
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this scheme, under the by location level, would you organize content as the following?
  • by state or territory for first-level subdivision
  • by county or equivalent for second-level subdivision
  • by city or equivalent
  • by whatever other container-of-containers categories, such as region
I could agree with that. Place Clichy (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have the same opinion as I did in the last discussion, I think "by location" can easily be a parent category to "by state or territory".★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and also because is there is currently no need to categorize American schoolteachers by any other type of location than state or territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not support It is normal for US states' content to be placed in 'by state' categories of just the 50 states and not mixed with other things; the exceptions noted above if not normal. It is also normal to have the 'territories' placed into 'insular area' categories, such as found in Category:Insular areas of the United States. It is unusual and misleading to include Washington, D.C. in a state category or a state and territory category though I see it is being done here and there. It is more usual to have a higher category composed of a 'by state' subcat, an 'insular area' subcat and a Washington, D.C. subcat since such a category structure (along with Indian reservations) conforms to the political reality of the United States. See Political divisions of the United States Hmains (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hmains: I notice that you previously placed a note in Categories by state or territory of the United States (then called Category:Categories by state of the United States) telling that For navigation convenience, Washington D.C. is usually included as a US state in the sub-categories below. What made you evolve on the issue, and consider that including Washington D.C. next to the 50 states is no longer convenient? Place Clichy (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did this before another editor called me out on it, stating that Washington D.C. was not a state and then proceeded to remove Washington D.C. from 'by state' categories. I could not disagree with him over the facts of the case, so I proceeded to match him/her with all further edits of mine. I have now removed my obsolete note.Hmains (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "by location". I dont see that schoolteachers need to be categorised by the political reality of the United States, and there are not enough articles to subdivide by county or city. Rathfelder (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Better describes the actual contents of the category. Number 57 11:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It would simplify WP Categories if there was an omnibus term for "states and territories" or if "state" categories could have a headnote saying that the category includes non-state entities, such as territories, but no doubt this would bring a ton of hot coals down on my head from Americans. The 50 states + DC + island territories together make up USA, so why one have one parent with about 60 members, rather that two 50 & 10? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 31 May 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:Women brewers[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) 09:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Women Brewers, where it has been argued that the gender of brewers is not really relevant to their brewing, but mere deletion of the category was not initially nominated. WP:OCEGRS guideline is relevant. @Fuddle, RevelationDirect, TSventon, BrownHairedGirl, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, Namiba, and Bibliomaniac15: pinging contributors in previous discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 15:01, 28 May 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:Geography of Aust-Agder[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) 09:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aust- and Vest-Agder merged on Januay 1st. Cycn (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I took the liberty to group related nominations with identical rationale. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Note that there are more "old" categories than the above which should be merged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 28 May 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:Sport in Telemark[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) 09:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Telemark and Vestfold merged into a new county. Cycn (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I took the liberty to group related nominations with identical rationale. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Note that there are more "old" categories than the above which should be merged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 28 May 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:Basketball simulation video games[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) 16:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing Category:Basketball video games. —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I would like to comment that there is a difference between the two categories, Category:Basketball simulation video games simulates or emulates multiple realistic aspects of the actual game of basketball. It was distinctly put in the description of the category. Category:Basketball video games just features any Basketball game that was ever created and even with that it only has a minuscule amount featured in the category compared to it's Duplicate. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an avid gamer, so the distinction is unclear to me, and there are not relevant links to clarify this inclusion criteria. As such, it seems too nuanced to be WP:DEFINING.—Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba I will explain the context, Some games have fictional elements like for example, Powerups and superhuman abilities such as NBA Jam or Mario Hoops 3 on 3. Basketball simulation video games include games that are more realistic to the game of basketball such as The NBA 2k series or NBA live series which is not even featured in Category:Basketball video games. I can see your reason behind nominating this page. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still doesn't defeat the purpose of this category. If you read the discussion above you would understand the difference between the two categories. I'm emphasizing how there not duplicates.ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is a sub-category where most games can be found. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, why is deletion proposed instead of a merge to Category:Basketball video games? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: It doesn't seem that there were entries here that wern't already in the older cat. No issue if a merge is deemed more appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't really understand the distinction, or at least it is subjective. "Games that are more realistic to the game of basketball" is not a distinction that can consistently be applied in categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 24 June 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:Cultural depictions of the Mafia[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing Category:Works about organized crime and its subcategories. —Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, and then there is also Category:Fictional Mafia crime families and Category:Mafia (series). It is all there, but difficult to cross-navigate. Can't we keep this as a container category, as a parent to all before-mentioned categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's relatively new, it seems easier to delete and remove, with no prejudice to recreate the same-named category with a clearer definition of it's membership and hierarchy.—Bagumba (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the opposite view and I do not agree with that either. The new category now collects a seemingly random subset of articles from said categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 28 May 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:Silver Clef Awards winners[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. MER-C 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Nordoff–Robbins Foundation hosts an annual fundraising gala and charity auction for music therapy that the Daily Mail describes well here (if you can get past the popup ads). There is a nominal prize given called the Silver Clef Award but that doesn't come within a country mile of being defining for, say, Paul McCartney, Phil Collins or other A-list singers donating their time. For any reader interested in the topic, the contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 28 May 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:Paderewski Prize recipients[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. MER-C 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Ignacy Jan Paderewski created two Paderewski Prizes for composers that gave out cash awards every three years from 1901-1948. None of the articles in the European subcat even mention the award while those in the American parent category are split between those that mention it in passing and those that omit it entirely. Perhaps this award was more prominent at the time, but it doesn't seem defining to aid navigation today. For any reader interested in the topic, the contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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_May_28&oldid=964629965"