Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3

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

August 3[edit]

Category:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are two main problems here: the first is that there's not really a clear distinction between this and Category:Sexual orientation and society, making this effectively a duplicate of another category that already exists. And the second is that the category page appears to be functioning at least partly as a misplaced article instead of a category page, complete with an extended dictionary definition of "societal attitude" as a term, reffed to the Oxford Dictionary entries for "society", "societal" and "attitude". (And since when do we cite references on a category page anyway?) So even if this were to be kept, it would still need to be cleaned up for misplaced content — but I still don't see why it's needed as a category of its own, as a separate thing from Category:Sexual orientation and society. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I appreciate your comments. The category Sexual orientation and society is a parent category whereas this is a subcategory. Clearly it's a separate and notable issue given the fact it has it's own article on Wikipedia (see [[1]].) I agree with you however, that it needs a clean up. I am by no means an expert at the creation of category pages however that's what the community is here for in my opinion -- To help improve content. As a quick secondary note: Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation are different. Homosexuality is a specific reference to those who have a sexual preference towards the same sex whereas sexual orientation is a umbrella term. The whole point in having subcategories is so that something can be further categorized. From a readers POV it could be said they'd prefer to be able to look at articles specifically about societies views towards homosexuals rather than being slapped with a massive list covering all orientations. I'd encourage you to remove the request for deletion and I will work to improve the article by removing the article read-a-like sections ect. Thanks for your input :) olowe2011 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that sexual orientation is technically an umbrella term for both homosexuality and heterosexuality — but Category:Sexual orientation and society only contains articles about social attitudes toward homosexuality. Since heterosexuality is the "default" setting in most cultures, we don't have articles about "social attitudes toward heterosexuality" as a thing that needs to have articles written about it — meaning that all of that category's contents are already LGBT-specific, and so it's already serving exactly the purpose you supposedly created this to distinguish it from. We could potentially rename it to something more LGBT-specific if you feel strongly about that, but since all of its contents are already LGBT-oriented it doesn't actually need an LGBT-specific subcategory as a separate thing. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Homosexuality specifically refers to the two people attracted to their own gender. Whereas orientation could refer to a number of different variants including bisexuality, a-sexuality ect. I think it's fair to say that "sexual orientation" is a much broader term than homosexuality. Sexual orientation is such an ambiguous terminology by itself and it could refer to any representation of human sexual desire for something then that thing could be named their orientation. Due to the ambiguity of the parent topic and its broad application I think it's fair to say that a subcategory wouldn't be so bad. I have edited out the article-read-alike sections, I invite you to read it if you will and provide me feedback. If you still feel like the category should be up for deletion then we will see how this discussion goes, otherwise I look forward to working with you in improving the category or relevant edits. Thanks friend :) olowe2011 (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're missing my point: no matter what broader application the term may have in theory, the category does not have any non-LGBT contents in fact. And it's never going to have any non-LGBT contents, because social attitudes toward non-LGBT sexualities are not a thing that there are ever going to be articles written about. So no matter what you may think about how the categories aren't duplicating each other in theory, they are duplicating each other in reality. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2015 (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:Maastricht culture[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Suggested name would be consistent with the other Culture by city in the Netherlands categories. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2015 (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:Trees of Yemen[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 Category:Trees of Yemen to Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula; merge Category:Trees of Iran to Category:Trees of Western Asia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a tree species (e.g. Adansonia digitata or Tamarind) is found in a particular country is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Alternatively, this could be upmerged to Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula / Category:Trees of Western Asia (we have been phasing out the Euro-centric "Middle East" in favour of WGSRPD regions). DexDor (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) adjusted DexDor (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a longstanding CFD consensus that because plant and animal species are not confined by national borders, they should generally be categorized broadly by region or continent rather than by every individual country in that region or continent — categorizing by every individual country just leads to category bloat. Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've created Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula and changed the nom to refer to it. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging to Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula. The nom has not been changed. I must oppose the concept of "West Asia", as that ought to include Siberia. Southwest Asia might be acceptable. If WGSRPD is using such a stupid term, it does not mean that WP should do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a misunderstanding that Western Asia (as defined by WGSRDPD) also includes Siberia. Western Asia contains countries from Turkey until Afghanistan, so including Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trees of Yemen to Category:Trees of Western Asia Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula and Category:Flora of Yemen
Category:Trees of Iran to Category:Trees of Western Asia and Category:Flora of Iran

:Category:Trees of the Arabian Peninsula to Category:Trees of Western Asia

Category:Trees of the Middle East to Category:Trees of Western Asia and where applicable Category:Trees of North Africa
Definitely not. Western Asia and the Arabian Peninsula are different level 2 regions, and the Middle East category would be dispersed, not just upmerged into the official regions. Seyasirt (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to dispersing the Middle East! In reality, however, you would look at upmerging to Western Asia and considering it also for North Africa (unless a tree is specific to Egypt). The Middle East is an intercontinental region, much like Latin America. It's ill-suited for systemic organization under the continents and subcontinents. Less suited than Latin America. gidonb (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabian Peninsula could be kept as it is a level 2 region. The Middle East is NOT a level 2 region! gidonb (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2015 (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:1968 US Open Series[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 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The US Open Series‎ was started in 2004 (official source) as a bonus system for selected tournaments (sometimes varying a little between years) leading up to the US Open (tennis). Many of the individual tournaments which have been part of the series are much older but the US Open Series did not exist before 2004. All 36 subcategories of Category:US Open Series by year for 1968 to 2003 should be deleted as meaningless. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (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.

Fascist rulers[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: keep. It may require some monitoring, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is absolutely fails WP:NPOV, furthermore several biographies which contain that category, are dubious: Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, José Félix Uriburu... etc. This is also a duplicate of Category:Fascists by nationality. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep The real problem here isn't the "fascist" label; it whether this ought to exist as a subset of "rulers". There is a huge Category:Fascists tree which at least on a cursory examination consists of people who were/are members of technically fascist organizations. Thus I'm not seeing a problem with that, but rather with the poor population of this smallish subcat. That said, category doesn't fit all that well into the Category:Rulers structure. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As long as the facts regarding fascism and ruler are found in the underlying articles, then the category is legitimate. Facts do not fail NPOV. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have much too high a regard for facts. Until you can write a clear dissertation on the facts that make someone a fascist, I will dispute such claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have a problem with this. Most of the people listed were obnoxious dictators, but deciding who among them can be correctly classified as fascist involves a POV decision. We might possibly rename it to right-wing totalitarian dictators. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge, remove people who weren't a fascist ruler from this category. There is no point deleting the category (unless perhaps in the end per WP:SMALLCAT) since fascists rulers have clearly existed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete Still contains 35 people, beginning with Idi Amin. Likely to remain more trouble than it is worth. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete calling someone facists is a long standing insult. This category should be limited to people who self-described as such. Is there any source anywhere where Amin said he was a fascist? However that would narrow it to be less than useful. Fascism was a political movement in Italy connected with Mussolini. Its application to anyone else is highly dubious and contentious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed 17 of the 35 articles because they were at first glance original research. Those 17 articles never in the text called the subject a Fascist. For what it is worth, calling Idi Amin "Right Wing" is difficult considering he at times was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. I think we need to be much more cautious in creating categories that attempt to link people by philosophy than we have been to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this purging, has the category become in better shape to keep, what do you think? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I share some of the concerns of those who wish to delete, I am not overly concerned categorizing someone as a fascist if he meets the criteria. Deleting this category right now could do more damage than good since the category dictators has been removed time and again and totalitarian dictators (disfunctional, limited in scope, and not mutually exclusive with this one) is currently a candidate for removal. If we remove fascists rulers as well we may create a huge void in our categorization structure. I would consider proposals that would take us forward from the current situation, preferably taking a more comprehensive approach. gidonb (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid subcategory of fascists that can be populated. That a category needs cleanup is no reason for deletion.Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (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.

Wilmington Hammerheads[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 12:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The team name is Wilmington Hammerheads FC. Joeykai (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (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 ice hockey defencemen[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category for American players should use the American spelling. Joeykai (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Please also include Category:American ice hockey defenceman stubs to Category:American ice hockey defenseman stubs and Category:American ice hockey centres to Category:American ice hockey centers Joeykai (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category should match parent category and the article spelling Defenceman. -DJSasso (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Category:American soccer players does not match parent category Category:Association football players Joeykai (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really the same thing, they are two completely different words as opposed to just a spelling difference. -DJSasso (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Category:Amphitheatres in Canada vs Category:Amphitheaters in the United States Joeykai (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move Category solely used to sort American players should use American English, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move I think using the Canadian spelling in the category does lead to editors who probably don't know any better switching the spelling in the rest of the article. I recently went through this entire category and there were approximately 200-250 out of 600 with the Canadian spelling. When searching through the edit histories a spelling change listed under "clean-up" is pretty common.[2] --Parkfly20 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a standard Eng-var change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2015 (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:Yugoslav people of World War II[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. This highlights the oft-misunderstood point that nationality ≠ citizenship in all cases. Citizenship always corresponds to a nationality of the same name, but nationality does not always correspond to a citizenship of the same name, and a person may have multiple nationalities but only one citizenship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These "People by nationality and war" categories should be based on nationality, not ethnicity, which should be dealt with by adding a separate Category:People by ethnicity category, such as Category:Bosniak people or Category:Serb people. The nationality/country of all the people currently in these categories was Yugoslav. Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia were not countries from shortly after WWI until 1990s. The Yugoslav Communist Party would say that from 1943, they individually became republics of a federative Yugoslavia (similar to the SSRs/republics of the USSR), but the government-in-exile of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia would say Yugoslavia was still organised as it was prior to the 1941 invasion, in banovina (regions). Either way, the above listed categories do not correspond to countries that existed during WWII. The Independent State of Croatia (the one that is missing) was a puppet country of the Axis which included modern Croatia, modern Bosnia and Herzegovina and some other additions and subtractions, and due to the complexities I believe a separate discussion may be necessary regarding Category:Croatian people of World War II for that reason. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were puppet states during WWII that were not Yugoslavia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, but other than the Independent State of Croatia, there were no puppet states in Yugoslavia, and this relates only to Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Yugoslav" is not nationality; Yugoslavia was a multinational state. — Yerpo Eh? 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any source for this statement? The article Yugoslavia itself says "The policy focused on a strong central government under the control of the Communist Party, and on recognition of the multiple nationalities". Those nationalities didn't spring up from nowhere after the war. — Yerpo Eh? 11:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from Yerpo's talk page) Referring to our article on Yugoslavia is WP:CIRCULAR. It is self-evident that the nation-state of Yugoslavia existed, and people who were citizens of that nation-state were Yugoslav people. This is demonstrated by the fact that, between 1920 or so and 1990, people's passports weren't issued by Slovenia etc, they were issued by Yugoslavia. If you look at how the parent category (Category:People of World War II by nationality is composed, you will see that despite one or two ahistorical subcategories like Category:Azerbaijani people of World War II and Category:Czech people of World War II, "nationality" is almost exclusively used in its nation-state sense, and there are no ethnic groups except Jews, or any subsets of nation-states that existed during WWII. I'm keen to understand your opposition in terms of Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By nationality and occupation, given that is the relevant guidance. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think treating "nationality" and "citizenship" as synonyms is useful here. Yes, there are differing viewpoints about that, but what harm would be to recognize the local habit (as explained in Nationality#Nationality versus ethnicity)? The passports also differed according to the owner's home republic. — Yerpo Eh? 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about being "helpful" or "unhelpful". That is exactly how this category tree is composed, by nation-state. Many nation-states have multiple "nations" or ethnicities", like Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda. The current Yugoslav people in WWII sub tree just doesn't follow the schema for its parent category. If you have evidence that KSCS/Yugoslav passports issued between 1922 and 1941 were different if they were issued to a resident of Maribor, I'd like to see it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Helpful" or "unhelpful" should be top priority, if we're trying to create a useful structure. Fleeting 20-th century states aren't. Or do you think we should also upmerge Category:Austrian people of World War II into Category:German people of World War II? — Yerpo Eh? 13:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think 1922-90 is fleeting, that's your call. I doubt anyone will agree with you. But WWII is the only period under discussion, and certainly not post-war republics or the passports issued then. Passports issued by KSCS and Yugoslav governments pre-war weren't different if you lived in Maribor as distinct from Zagreb. During WWII there was no Slovenia except in the minds of Slovene Partisans, until 1943 when a republic was created within a federative Yugoslavia. It didn't really exist as a formed polity until the end of the war, but Yugoslavia existed de jure throughout the war. It isn't useful to have a child category that says something about itself that isn't grounded in reality, and that is that Slovenia was a nation-state during WWII and had people in it that were Slovenian citizens. They weren't, they were Yugoslav citizens, and nationality in a citizenship sense is what the parent category is about. That can clearly be seen by the schema used. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the period 1929-1946, the only period in which this political formation was truly homogeneous on the outside, as a kingdom. And that is fleeting by any historical definition. As said, "nationality" and "citizenship" are not (always) synonymous and there is no harm in respecting this local peculiarity. The existence of the category simply says that "Slovene" was a nation back then (which it was, with own culture, educational system etc.). I repeat, will you also propose abolishing the Austrian categorization for this period? If not, please explain why that case is different. — Yerpo Eh? 06:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Third Reich people of World War II, for those people from areas within the territory of the Third Reich. But tell me, by your preferred definition of the category "Slovenian people of World War II", does it include people from Slovene minorities that were from the nation-states of Austria or Italy? Or only those from the territory that later became the Slovenian republic of Yugoslavia and later Slovenia? This is the whole point of categorising people of WWII by nationality ie Yugoslav, it makes people easier to categorise because the places they were from are easily defined. If you want to make the point that someone was a Slovene, then you also use the category "Slovenian people", which should probably be renamed "Slovene people" to avoid this sort of confusion. If someone was an ethnic Italian but lived in what later became Slovenia, are you saying they should be in Slovenian people of WWII, or Italian people of WWII? Or perhaps you are saying both? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is a choice. So of course, if someone was ethnic Italian (as demonstrated by good sources) living in what later became Slovenia, they would be put in the Italian category tree. Likewise, members of Slovene minorities in Austria/Italy would be considered Slovene for this purpose. Very few people declared themselves primarily "Yugoslavian", as opposed to, say, today's Americans of different ethnic backgrounds. Ease of categorization shouldn't obscure cultural realities. As for Slovenian vs. Slovene, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene), this was debated extensively before. — Yerpo Eh? 13:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is usually not a choice, I am Australian because I was born here. People that come here and become citizens have chosen to become Australian, though in limited cases they may remain dual nationals. A Slovene born in Bad Radkersburg is Austrian by nationality. If they moved to Slovenia, I imagine they would need to apply to become a Slovenian citizen. And if it is as you say, why is the main article for the category "Slovenian people" at Slovenes? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this disagreement is that you treat the nationality as synonymous to citizenship and me as closer to ethnicity (as in "nation is a strongly established ethnic group, usually with political sovereignity"). We will not come together like this, continuing to poke at the other person's viewpoint from own viewpoint. We need other opinions. As for Slovenes, I don't know, I wasn't involved in naming the article. Check talk pages. — Yerpo Eh? 05:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is arguing that they weren't/aren't different ethnicities, but these categories are outliers from a scheme that is firmly rooted in nationality, not ethnicity. Essentially, in my view, they are ahistorical, as they support a false POV based on the current arrangements, that Yugoslavia didn't exist as a nation, and there was a nation-state called Montenegro or Bosnia and Herzegovina during WWII. There wasn't. This strange categorisation seems to only affect Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in this category. There is no "Flemish people of WWII" because the Flemish are an ethnic group. Perhaps it is because both were divided up by the Germans. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We only partially agree since I'm still not convinced of the need of a merger as nominated, I'm only proposing to edit the category pages by removing one of the parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a combination of the two things you've suggested? Rename them unambiguously for the ethnic group (that Yerpo refers to as nationality) rather than the citizenship (ie Serb, Montenegrin, Slovene, Serb, Bosniak), and remove them from Category:People of World War II by nationality, leaving them under the other parents? An explanatory sentence could be added to each category to clarify who is included. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite see the point, because these four countries did not cease to exist during the existence of Yugoslavia, they exist these days so they can fit nicely into the modern-day per-country/state categorization, and such categorization is found in sources, both because the groups of Partisans often did organize along these country lines and because it is fairly natural to speak of them that way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yugoslav clearly was a nationality. Lots of people identified with it to one degree or another. There were even a few people who identified with it so much they stopped identifying with any specific ethnicity. However the tearing apart of Yugoslavia during World War II makes the whole issue complex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article on Yugoslavs points that they were both a nationality and an ethnicity but still a "supra-ethnic" group. The smaller groups like Serbs and Croats never ceased existing. Regarding World War II, I suggest that they be treated as subcategories of the larger whole. For the same reason that British people categories have English, Scottish, and Welsh subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2015 (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:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa clothing[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. Since the one article is already in both targets, the implementation of the closure is as a delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a category just for one article. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2015 (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:Radical Islam in America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, but rename for now to Category:Islamic fundamentalism in the United States. I will change the category definition as it is currently quite loaded and POV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is rather a mess - e.g. it has no parent categories so (despite its text) it's hard to work out exactly what its inclusion criteria are. Articles like Al-Qaeda shouldn't be in an America category and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shouldn't be in a Radical Islam category. If not deleted this should be renamed to something like "Islamic terrorist incidents in the United States" (for consistency with categories such as Category:Islamic terrorist incidents and Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States which it could then be placed under) and purged of many/most of the current articles, but IMO it would be much better to create any such category from scratch. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to create such a category it should be because it improves the categorization structure, not because of a wish to "salvage" a bad category. On a practical level it's probably simpler to separate deletion of the bad category (an admin action) from creation of a good category (which would typically involve using catscan to identify articles at the relevant intersection). Note: we already categorize terrorist incidents in the US by year, by state and by type (IED, car bomb etc) so I'm not quite convinced that also subcategorizing by motive (e.g. Islamism) is necessary (otherwise I would have created that category myself). DexDor (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete Category - This category is tracking groups that are advocating for war, violence and terrorism against the citizens of the United States of America. This is NOT just to track terrorism incidents. Coriantumr15 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against this alternative per se, but as you agree that the category needs to be purged and you propose to divide the remaining content over two categories, I wonder if sufficient content will be left in each of the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imho this is not so much a concern. This is why. So far we discussed the items that are in the cat, of which some need to be removed. We never discussed those who should be added to proper categories. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I view Category:Islamic fundamentalism in the United States as a sibling to Category:Islamic extremism in Northern Nigeria, which imho should be renamed into Category:Islamic fundamentalism in Nigeria and contain the Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in Nigeria. The same structure could apply to many other countries. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If people want to track groups of Radical Islamists, they can create their own detabase with links to Wikipedia articles, that is not a proper use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia categories need to be NPOV, to be defining to the articles, to have clear yes or no definitions and to use agreed upon terms. I think until we have a category Radical Islam, this category will not work. Also, this category should if it ever was kept be part of a larger scheme with Category:Radical Islam in Egypt, Category:Radical Islam in the united Kingdom etc. However we need to show that Radical Islam can have a reliably-sourced article first, and that requires creating such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so Radical Islam goes to "Islamic fundamentalism". At the start of that article we get "Definitions of Islamic fundamentalism vary." That is a red flag that categories will not work. We need categories where we can have a consensus on the contents. The problem here is that while there seems a close connection between Wahhabism and the Salafi movement and Islamic Terrorism, one is not the other, not all Wahhabist support suicide bombings, and we will be grouping many unlike things. Plus whether an individual or institution is or is not Wahhabist/Salafi is often a major point of contention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A total ban on categories for articles, of which the definitions are somewhat disputed, creates huge gaps in our category structure and does not serve WP readers well. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Islamic fundamentalism in the United States per Gidonb's suggestion. We do not have an article on Radical Islam, this is used as a synonym for Islamic fundamentalism. Also we do not use the term "America" in the United States category tree. Also advocastion of "sharia law in America" seems to fit more with fundamendalists than terrorists. Category:Islamic terrorist incidents currentlt has no subcategories by country anyway. What makes the United States special in this case? Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2015 (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:Bergey's volume 4[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 11:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this is part of an attempt to ascribe all species of bacteria on Wikipedia to a source textbook. This is not a defining characteristic of a bacterial species. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (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:Druze community in Israel[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. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Druze community in Israel to Category:Druze communities in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Category:Druze community in Israel is the developed category page with subcategories, Category:Druze communities in Israel is the page that follows the pattern of the other Category:Druze communities. Hence I propose moving all "community" items to "communities" and deleting the "community" page. gidonb (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - there is a difference between the two. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2015 (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:2455 BC deaths[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, there's really nothing gained by trying to figure out anything else that happened in the specific year 2455 BC. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2015 (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.

1 and 2 article Rector by University categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgium
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories group university rectors by school and each contain 1 or 2 articles. Since a university only has one overall leader at a time, these categories are inherently small and a Google search didn't make growth seem likely, at least with English sources. No objection to recreating these later if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Peterkingiron: I submitted a rename for the target Ukraine category through the speedy nomination process. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The speedy nomination passed and the proposal above has been updated with the new target category name. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without bias against any recreation if more articles come to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2015 (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.

1 and 2 article Junior College Football Player categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories group junior college athletes by school and each contain 1 or 2 articles. Since most modern professional American football players already have Wikipedia articles, these categories are unlikely to grow until new notable athletes emerge. No objection to recreating these later if more content appears. (Background: In my earlier nomination for Category:Detroit Tech football players, it was suggested I look at other under-populated college categories.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, the University of Rochester is definitely not a "junior college," it's a prestigious 4-year institution, and a full-fledged NCAA member, albeit at the D-III level. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I corrected the current category on the article and updated the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Quoting directly from WP:SMALLCAT, "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". . . The category structure for US college athletics is definitely part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and, as these are all active programs (unlike the previous nomination, which was a for a long-defunct program), the potential for future growth in these categories is certainly there. Again, quoting directly from WP:SMALLCAT, "a category which does have realistic potential for growth". . . "may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." That's pretty much what this is, in a nutshell. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we just disagree about whether a sub-categorization scheme with this many small categories is "accepted" to aid navigation. (You may also want to weigh in on the Rector nomination, above.)RevelationDirect (talk)
  • Oppose per WP:SMALLCAT exception mentioned above. gidonb (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In previous discussions that I've seen about a "large overall sub-categorization scheme" there was always a full diffusion (e.g. subcategories for all nationalities of the world). That is not the case here, so I don't think that the smallcat exception applies here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without bias against any recreation if more articles come to exist. Such small categories do not help navigation. They needlessly split both the alum cats and the football cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to give one example, it does not make sense to have any subdivisions of Category:Ohlone College alumni, which only has 3 total articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2015 (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:Professional wrestling venues[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listing both for deletion in line with WP:OCVENUE along with discussions 1, 2 and 3. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sports venues and Category:Defunct sports venues? The defunct one has subcategories for country and city though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! In the defunct category if closed. BTW did you see its subcategories? Many of these fail WP:OCVENUE! gidonb (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's much work to be done here. I'm just getting rid of wrestling first. I think it's better to only have those listed by league (if it's within reason) under each sports category. Then when a WWE situation comes around, it can be considered separate from say Olympic wrestling venues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That some professional wrestling occured at these venues is not defining to the venue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2015 (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/2015_August_3&oldid=1087612412"