Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30[edit]

Central Intercollegiate Conference[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 The article has now been moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This conference was most commonly known at the "Central Intercollegiate Conference". The article for the subject, Central Intercollegiate Conference has already been renamed accordingly. See source cited there: [1] Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The head article was boldly renamed[2] on 29 May by the nominator, who should have disclosed this fact. I am sure that the bold move made in good faith, but I just have reverted it[3] so that the article title can be decided at a WP:RM discussion. If the consensus at RM is to move the article, then the categories can be speedily renamed to match, per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the correct name for the conference was Central Intercollegiate Conference per [4] [5] these sources. In these sources the CIAC is not named as such. In instances such as these shouldn't accuracy be the chief goal.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, I reverted your page move back to Central Intercollegiate Conference. This was a non-controversial move and clearly supported by the the RSs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. If there's any good reason to oppose the move of this block of content from CIAC to CIC, that argument can be made here. If this nomination fails, I will gladly move the article back to CIAC and do all the associated cleanup. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jweiss11, per WP:BRD, the revert should have been followed by discussion, not by another bold move. I have re-reverted, and opened an RM discussion at Talk:Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference#Requested_move_2_June_2020, where yuo may wish to present any relevant evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is optional. It really isn't necessary for clearly appropriate moves and changes to correct errors. There is no controversy here that I can see.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support non-controversial change, basic housekeeping. Fix it and move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, in case of a recent article renaming, an RM should not always be necessary before a category renaming. Even in speedy category renaming we allow exceptions. This typically looks like a case in which an RM is unnecessary given the amount of evidence given in this very discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best move is just to simply close this discussion as soon as the related (and unnecessary) RM is closed. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:48, 6 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:Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina[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. bibliomaniac15 18:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've stumbled upon this weird category while tidying up Category:European television navigational boxes. It is a subcategory of Category:Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina and contains a single page—Template:Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The navbox contains wikilinks to radio and TV stations, some of which are directly related to Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina (eponymous article of Category:Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina, BHRT for short), but some of the wikilinks are for affiliated stations: RTVFBiH and RTRS.

The category also has other parent categories, which make it seem that Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is another broadcasting entity, which it isn't. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:16, 30 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:Pandemic 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: merge to Category:Films about viral outbreaks. bibliomaniac15 03:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. DonIago (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same problem most "about" categories have; how much about pandemics must these films be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 4 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:Former NET affiliates[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed; nearly all NET stations became PBS members. There are some commercial stations listed; they only aired NET programming part-time. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: NET was the forerunner of pbs. Few stations are defunct now. MMessine19 (talk) 15:36, 30 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:Oglethorpe University honorary degree 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, this is a non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 13:40, 30 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:Appointed United States senators[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The method of entering public office is non-defining. It is not something one would include in the introduction to an article. User:Namiba 13:09, 30 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:People from East Jerusalem[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. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely vague category as the borders of East Jerusalem have changed so much. For exactly this reason, the Category:East Jerusalem has been deleted time and again. See discussion here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. For sure, East Jerusalem is a legitimate topic but not every topic lends itself to categorization. It makes more sense to keep these people in Category:People from Jerusalem and its other subcategories. The Category:People from East Jerusalem was created by a banned sock puppeteer.
Besides vague it is also nondefining. When East and West Jerusalem were split (just 19 years on thousands of years of history), the Jordanian municipality was called Al-Quds, translating to Jerusalem. Now that East Jerusalem is used to refer to all formerly Jordan-annexed land in a rather large municipality of Jerusalem, people still identify as from Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, or some or all of the above. Maybe also by neighborhood but East Jerusalem is a dynamic region within Jerusalem. Not helpful, not defining, and bound to be ethnically selective as well. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The boundary of East Jerusalem, the Green Line, has not changed since the 1948 cease-fire. Place Clichy (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy, for sure the green line hasn't changed one bit but that is only the western boundary of East Jerusalem. All other boundaries of East Jerusalem (south, north, and east) have dramatically changed, which is what my (extremely apolitical) argument was all about. This objection is just one of many yet it is important: it's the one that disqualified having a category for East Jerusalem in the first place. gidonb (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, merge as nom. I don't agree with the original rationale, but in the end having this category ends up as people in the same tract of land at the same time being either from "Jerusalem" or "East Jerusalem" based on being Arab or Jewish only, which is evidently a POV fork. This makes the category less helpful. Additionally, probable none of the two sides would probably consider themselves as from East Jerusalem. Place Clichy (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place Clichy, sorry if my intro wasn't clear enough. Marcocapelle illustrates below what amount of clutter and mixed chronology/geography would make this shifting region into a stable one that highlights exactly the 19 years where Jews did not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. All this clutter, ethnic focus, and politicization of categories lead to no benefit because the people who lived there under Jordanian rule identified as being from Jerusalem all along. Clearly, the creator of this category did not use sockpuppets without reason. gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 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:United States cabinet members from Nebraska[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) 07:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only one of its kind, this is overcategorization. Their home has little to nothing to do with their appointment to the US Cabinet and is thus WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 11:46, 30 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:Lists of people sharing a surname[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. bibliomaniac15 03:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is woefully underpopulated, and I'm pretty sure most of the entries in the surnames category are lists. Also, a random sampling of entries in this category shows they're probably already listed in the target category already. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my random sample of Category:Surnames were all lists of people sharing a surname. Oculi (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Toward Reverse Merge I'm seeing the same thing you are that the the entries in the target Category:Surnames are in practice also lists. To me that suggests a reverse merge but I want to hear from other editors before changing a huge category with nearly 80,000 items. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Is there an automated way to do that? (I'm certainly not going to ask any Wikipedian to pick through 80,000 items manually.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, picking out redirects is a trivially easy job with AWB. If the outcome of this discussion requires some action to be performed only redirected pages, then please ping me. If the set which need changing is small, I can do it as straight off; if I find that the set is big, and I will file a WP:BRFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, eh? How do you propose to filter out the articles that don't have lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, the two categories serve the same purpose (apart from the redirects discussed above). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defaulting to merge since a reverse merge is not feasible per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many such cases there are, but the editors above don't seem to know either. A decision should be made only when the data is presented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't know and I don't disagree about needing examiniation. Given the large size of the category, are there some automated ways to find out?RevelationDirect (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, I can see a few ways in which AWB might be able to detect non-list articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 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:Ars nova and subtilior[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) 10:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, Ars nova and Ars subtilior are two different consecutive musical styles so the category should be split. However, there is too little content to split so then upmerge to the parent categories is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 30 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:Islam critical scholars[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: disperse then delete. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: disperse between Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam and its subcategories. Obviously non-Muslim scholars tend to be more critical of Islam, but it is subjective to determine how much more critical a scholar has to be in order to become part of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If their criticism of Islam defines their public personas they can also be included in the parent category "critics of Islam" (possibly by country), however, as scholars, they just engage in research. gidonb (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do not agree that Non-Muslim scholars should be more critical (actually, that would probably make them pretty bad scholars if this was their only motivation) or that Muslim scholars avoid criticism (that would make them bad scholars too, at there are plenty of reformers in Islam). However I do not think that religion scholars are defined by their level of criticism. Place Clichy (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support classifying people based on one opinion (however vaguely defined) is a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 4 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:Herblock Prize 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Herblock Prize is an American award for editorial cartoonist. The 15 articles in the category mostly list the award in passing with other honors while a few mention it in the lede and a couple not at all so it doesn't seem defining. More importantly, for editorial cartoonist in the US the recognized career capstone is the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning and, for those who have won both, is consistently mentioned more prominently. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 30 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.

Category:Conscience-in-Media Award 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The American Society of Journalists and Authors issues the Conscience-in-Media Award to journalists who have sacrificed for the profession. The 10 people are all prominent journalists whose article mention this award in passing but don't seem defined by it. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 30 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_30&oldid=961733376"