Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11
June 13 >

June 12[edit]

Category:21st-century presidents in Europe[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Category:21st-century women presidents in Europe. Indirectly WP:G4 per the 2010 "20th and 21st-century rulers" CfD, which led to the deletion of Category:21st-century national presidents in Europe, Category:20th-century national presidents in Europe, and more. Because the 2010 CfD is quite long ago, and "21st-century women presidents in Europe" CfM had minimal participation, I'm going to be careful and only nominate this category (which I created 2 weeks ago) and its children for now, and see if people agree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a bit of an overcat. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 12 June 2023 (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 volunteer units resisting the Russian invasion of Ukraine[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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This new name would correspond better to the existing Category:Pro-Ukraine foreign volunteers in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is used for individuals rather than units. GCarty (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2023 (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:Palestinian charities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 2#Category:Palestinian charities

Years in Newfoundland[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Not enough content on a yearly basis for pre-confederation Newfoundland. The present-day province Newfoundland and Labrador was established in September 1949 when it was annexed into Canada (that tree is not being altered). Newfoundland was a part of the British Empire as Newfoundland Colony (1610–1907). The Dominion of Newfoundland (1907–1949) succeeded the colony and was granted self-governance until the Great Depression forced them to return to British dependence in 1934. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant history: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 26#Years in Canada
  • Oppose. I theory this all sounds very neat. But in practice, anything which involves replacing one category on an article with three other categories is a surefire recipe for chaos.
    This one-to-three recipe can be implemented accurately here at CFD, where multiple experienced category editors have tools at their disposal. But after CFD, most categories will be added by editors who are not category geeks, and what are the chances of a non-geek knowing that this needs three categories? The probability is about zero ... so the effect of these merges would be to guarantee miscategorisation in the future.
    A why do this? The use of two-row {{Navseasoncats}} allows fast and easy navigation between these categories, which would be lost in any merge. Why go to all the trouble of making a huge nomination to break something that is working? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, mostly single-article categories and some years are lacking entirely. I am not convinced that editors are inventing from scratch in which categories an article belongs (that would result in massive undercategorization) or any other additional script e.g. for templates, rather they will copy it from a similar article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle there is indeed massive undercategorization. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not my experience. I have removed more category tags (per WP:SUBCAT) than added new ones - while I have done both, a lot. But whatever I have done, I did it often for many articles in the same category, because editors have clearly been copying category tags. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- it is true that {{Navseasoncats}} provides a very elegant tree of correctly parented and readily linked subcategories. However this should not be used on an insufficient number of articles. How many articles are needed in a century before a 'by year' system is useful? Surely 100 is barely minimal. According to AWB's recursive list, Category:18th century in Newfoundland contains in all 6 articles, Category:19th century in Newfoundland has 48 (which suggests 'by decade' to me), and Category:20th century in Newfoundland has 124 (over 50 years), that is around 2.5 per year. (Many are not tagged so far.) Oculi (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 136 categories listed, containing a total of 178 articles. This is patently absurd. Oculi (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreating any parts of the tree that exceed our expectations and make it to 5+ articles for most subcats. The current overly fine grained breakdown is not working, it breaks up articles. Having whole sections of under-populated category trees goes beyond the exception for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" envisioned in WP:SMALLCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2023 (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:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1809[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 2#Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1809

Category:Sports clubs and teams established in 1787[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. Although BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has raised reasonable concerns about systematic consistency, there is overwhelming precedent that categories that are early in history do not need to be diffused as finely as later years. And in this case, there are not enough articles to diffuse the 18th century below the decade level. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (1 P). The established tree starts later. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT has always allowed single-article categories as part of a series. If you want there to be no single-article categories in a series, go open a WP:RFC.
    And the claim that The established tree starts later is a load of nonsense, a silly assertion designed to twist and misrepresent the guideline. The established tree grows and develops as the 'pedia develops, and any by-year "established tree" starts with the earliest year in which we currently have an article: there is no fixed boundary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per BHG's excellent analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the entire 18th century in organized by decade rather than by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. Category:Sports clubs and teams established in the 18th century contains in all 50 articles, far too few for a 'by year' subcat scheme. In fact even the next layer up, Category:Sports organizations established in the 18th century has in all 50 articles in 23 subcats. Oculi (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. The exception for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" in WP:SMALLCAT can allow for 1 article subcats in an otherwise well populated tree, but creating a whole anemic 18th Century tree here does not aid navigation. Ever reaching a point where most of the 18th century years reach 5+ articles seems unlikely. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2023 (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:Ecclesiastical passivity to Catholic sexual abuse cases[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: listify into Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Rename per head article Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests, and purge.
Clerical passivity in sexual abuse cases is of course a serious and widespread problem, with many well-documented cases of failure to meaningfully investigate or report horrible crimes. However, the level of passivity required for inclusion in this category is a subjective test, and any attempt to define a threshold would be WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
However, transferring a priest to another parish is clear: either the transfer happened, or it did not. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D and nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw I am not sure that this eligible for a speedy, 'cos the renaming will narrow the scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl Hmm what do you mean by "head article"? Is that the same as, or different from, "main article"? The latter are identified with the sort key | ]], but the article in question has sort key |*]]. Does * identify "head articles"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SORTKEY doesn't give them a name, but does distinguish the two: other general articles that are highly relevant to the category should be sorted with an asterisk as key so that they also appear at the top of a category but beneath the main article/s. That's quite a wordy description though. I don't know if "head article" is a common term for it (you're the first one I've seen using it), but that might be a useful shorthand to introduce there. In any case, yes, then this shouldn't be speedied and I'll just agree with your nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: my point is not about any distinction between the terms "head article" and "main article".
    My point is that Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests has a narrower scope than the current category, and that my proposed move is not simply a renaming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that now, thanks for explaining. I now agree with the nomination as you intended it, not as I initially misunderstood it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are about priests. Shouldn't it become something like Category:Abusive Catholic priests covered by parish transfer? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I found this category on Brendan Comiskey, who was a passive Bishop rather than an abusive priest. The other name I recognised were also passive bishops: Dermot Ryan, Seán Brady (cardinal), Desmond Connell.
    I haven't checked whether it's all bishops, or a mix of passive Bishops and abusive priests ... but it's definitely not solely a set of abusive priests. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, it concerns bishops. Should become something like Category:Catholic clergy accused of sexual abuse cover-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle I am wary of using the term "accused" in category names, because it allows the inclusion of unproven allegations. And right now I am too tired to think of a better suggestion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl @Marcocapelle Both of you are making good points. I'm starting to think it may be better to Delete this category as a whole, because apart from "head article" Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests, I'm not sure we can populate this category with anyone allegedly or proven to be involved in "Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests". This may soon amount to a WP:BLP violation for any accused clerics who are still alive and for whom there is no conclusive evidence of guilt or complicity (by aiding and abetting a priest found guilty of abuse, or accused of abuse).

      Transfers may not necessarily be evidence that said priests were found guilty of abuse by bishops or other higher-up clerics (including cardinals, the Curia and the Pope), just that these clerics were aware that there had been accusations of abuse by said priests that they took so seriously that they decided that a parish transfer was the best solution to hush it up and prevent a scandal. As such, parish transfers are evidence that clerics were aware of serious accusations of abuse and concluded that the situation required an action, namely, a parish transfer. This is (currently) widely recognised as an inappropriate (and perhaps criminal) measure, because in most legal systems, there is a duty to report such information to secular authorities. But, whether any cleric should have reported the evidence they gathered to the police / court or not, would probably depend on each case, and is up to the judge, not to Wikipedia. We Wikipedians often do not have access to the details of each case (for good reasons of confidentiality), so there is a WP:V problem as well.

      With this categorisation, we are essentially lumping it all together and saying all of these people are or have been "passive", "guilty", or "complicit" in some way, without needing to provide evidence. I don't think we can, especially due to WP:BLP, but also WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Perhaps Listify is a better option because it allows us to provide evidence in what way this or that cleric was "passive", "guilty", "complicit" or otherwise involved in the parish transfers? Then again, I think this would mostly duplicate information already found in Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests anyway. So Deletion is once again my preferred option at the moment. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nederlandse Leeuw think you overstate the problem of BLP and subjectivity. In the case of the Irish bishops listed here, there were well-structured formal inquiries which reported episcopal passivity and transfers of abusive priests.
      Nonetheless, I would not in principle oppose listification, because lists can provide much more info, and be referenced.
      However, in practice, CFD-mandated lists rarely work out well. he usual pattern is that the category languishes for ages in a holding area, until some kind soul tackles the backlog. But our backlog-clearer rarely has the time or the interest in the topic to more than dump a list of the category contents onto a page and save it. The result is a largely useless, unreferenced page which is deleted a few years later at AFD.
      So I will oppose listification unless a decent list already exists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl Fair enough, then listification into a new list is a bad idea.
      Would you agree with me that Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests already serves the "list" function quite well? It's written in prose rather than a bulletlist or a table listing entries. But especially the subsection Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests#Netherlands (which I wrote) is structured in a way that each paragraph essentially represents an entry on a bishop or cardinal who knowingly transferred at least one priest who was found guilty of, or had been seriously accused of, sexual abuse (of a minor).
      I think all people in Category:Ecclesiastical passivity to Catholic sexual abuse cases who are not yet mentioned in Parish transfers of abusive Catholic priests can be moved there, with one or more sentences based on at least 1 WP:RS explaining their role. Once that is done, the category can be deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: Incidentally, I'll volunteer to do this instead of our backlog-clearer. I've already worked on the article before (84% of the current text was written by me, apparently), I know what kind of sources to look for, and how to present the information in an encyclopedic fashion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would expect (but maybe I am wrong) the section about Ireland to be far more elaborate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I hadn't found much evidence of parish transfers in the Republic of Ireland yet. I prefer not looking at individual cases, to avoid WP:SYNTH; I want RS which mention groups of cases, and conclude that this means there is a pattern and not just some unrelated incidents. Therefore, I've been searching for overview articles mentioning groups/lists of cases, and I used "parish to parish" and similar key words to find such texts. Maybe sources about Irish cases just don't use that phrase to describe a larger phenomenon, or maybe they only talk about individual cases. Either way, if anyone likes to revisit the issue, they can. I might give it another try with a more thorough search. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nederlandse Leeuw: your search seems to be faulty. In Ireland, there have been major inquiries into particular dioceses, such as Brendan Comiskey in Ferns. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @BrownHairedGirl If you've got RS that I could cite, I would appreciate it and gladly make use of them to expand the Ireland section. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nederlandse Leeuw look in the articles, such as those I listed above: Brendan Comiskey, Dermot Ryan, Seán Brady (cardinal), Desmond Connell. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, thanks. The Comiskey page doesn't say anything about transfers, but the 2005 Ferns Report (archive link) does. I'm not sure if this counts as WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source, but at least it is the kind of groups-of-cases source I'm looking for. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2023 (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:The Circle (band) live albums[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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main cat and both subcats only have one entry each. Not much point in keeping them separated if they're gonna be three SMALLCATs. If they do get kept then they need renamed to "Sammy Hagar and the Circle". QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 12 June 2023 (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:Berber dynasties[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 2#Category:Berber dynasties

Category:Arab[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 6#Category:Arab

Category:Archaeology in Pakistan[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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please speedy-rename (please suppress the redirect to keep enwiki database cleaner). I don't have a script to mass-rename Estopedist1 (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2C. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:52, 12 June 2023 (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/2023_June_12&oldid=1163788394"