Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Biopunk video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining classification. The biopunk neologism is not associated with any of the tagged articles by a reliable, secondary source. czar 18:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "biopunk" is barely even acknowledged as a thing, let alone is it considered a defining characteristic of something... Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does feel like a genre being forced, given how broad that Category:Biopunk covers. It's not that Biopunk shouldn't be an article, but to classify under the term seems awfully premature. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Biopunk is not (commonly) used to describe or define video games, making it difficult if not impossible to populate the category accurately. ~Mable (chat) 10:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The categories for biopunk novels and films might make sense, but the term "biopunk" seems to be rarely if ever used in video game related publications, thus preventing us from backing up the categorizations with reliable sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's too soon for this; not enough RS agree this even "is a thing", much less how to define it narrowly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:18, 2 February 2016 (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:Masorti rabbis[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination to see if emptying this category tree out of process is backed by a consensus. PanchoS (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – no rationale given for merging, and the 2 subcats (now restored) had been removed rather than upmerged, possibly in error. Oculi (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rabbis of Conservative Judaism' might be a better name for both, since the article is 'Conservative Judaism' and the category is Category:Conservative Judaism. To me 'Conservative rabbi' is a wider term. Oculi (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to agree with "conservative rabbis" being a slightly wider term rather than a synonym, but waiting for others to chime in. --PanchoS (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning merge as what we say about "Masorti" implies that it's a synonym for the conservative movement; moreover the articles tend to identify these rabbis as being within conservative Judaism. I can agree that renaming the conservative category ight be in order but it could also perhaps be dealt with in a hatnote. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I looked for a main article thus. Masorti Judaism redirects to Conservative Judaism and states that the latter has the former name outside America. Accordingly, they would seem to be much the same thing. While the latter is the main article the parent category, at least, should be merged. However, if the former is the normal English term outside US, it might be legitimate to keep it elsewhere. Emptying out of process, is to be deplored. If a category needs discussion it should be brought here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge as the (procedural) nominator. My orginal doubt was whether there is a unified conservative/Masorti movement outside the U.S. that can be subsumed under "Conservative Judaism" under the U.S. pretext. Having read some WP:RS, including the crystal clear Louis Jacobs' Jewish Religion: A companion, it however seemed a negligible problem, as the movement in fact seems to be strongly North America centered, where it is called "Conservative Judaism". While there are quite some Masorti Jews in Israel, there are only relatively few adherents in the UK and the rest of Europe, and they seem to be tied in using one or the other name. As Peterkingiron said, the out-of-process emptying is deplorable, but now I brought the debate here and the merge proved not overly controversial. --PanchoS (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless the disambiguation page for Masorah is incorrect, this is simply a Hebrew term for "tradition". The derivative terms "Masorti" (singular) and Masortim (plural) simply mean "traditional". Should this term be identified with the Conservative Judaism movement, which claims descent from the 19th-century ideas of Zecharias Frankel? Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably the fate of Category:Masorti rabbis by nationality should be considered at the same time since it is one of the two pages in this category. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 5 February 2016 (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.

"WikiProject Foo members" to "WikiProject Foo participants", again[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: proceed to nominate the categories concerned. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-action discussion
We fixed this once already. In a CfD years ago, all the then-extant wikiproject user categories were normalized to "participants" names, instead of "members" [1]. There's been back-and-forth about this over the years, with most of the pro-"members" arguments being WP:ILIKEIT (and many of them predating the existence of WP:AADD), while those in favor of "participants" are policy- and logic-based, primarily on the basis that a "membership" meme is divisive, anti-collaborative, and WP:OWN-ish. Due to failure to follow that early CfR up with wording changes at WP:WikiProject Council documentation and templates (they retained a lot of "members" language, which I changed to "participants" just now), a large number of new projects and taskforces/workgroups have taken up using "members" again. However, as the log below shows, decisions here have consistently been drifting toward "participants", treating it as the default, and virtually never moving or merging in favor of "members" (it looks like the last time that was done was in 2006).

Given the lingering "members" cases and the frequency with which new wikiprojects go with "members", it is not surprising that the intervening years have seen a sharp increase in antagonistic, WP:FACTION behavior between wikiprojects, and from wikiprojects toward non-"members" of them; an increase in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violations by wikiprojects acting as if they are sovereign, exclusive wiki-citystates; a wikiproject implosion or two after such LOCALCONSENSUS problems were undone; and several resulting WP:ARBCOM cases, all of which have re-confirmed that wikiprojects are, as a matter of policy, simply some editors agreeing to collaborate, and have no special powers or authority or over any articles or topics. Yet "you're not a member" WP:OWN behavior continues. As WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject notes, "projects simply consider any editor currently involved in its work to be a participant." If only this were consistently the case in practice.

The WMF Board Resolution on Openness (2011) is worth quoting here: "The Wikimedia projects are founded in the culture of openness, participation, and quality... [but] recent studies of editor trends show a steady decline in the participation and retention of new editors. ... We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by: ... Improving communication on the projects; ... Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, ... [and] to develop practices to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior". I interpret this as WMF mandate to weed out lingering divisive practices and plant collaboration-bearing ones in their place.

My rede on this is that the "members" categories should all be moved to "participant" names, per the original CfD results, and per actual policy-based and common-sense rationales, not "ILIKEIT". The obvious problem with individually tagging them all and nominating them in a normal mass-CfR is that it will sharply bias the responses, by alerting those with an interest in preserving the factionalizing to come vote against anything that starts dissolving it. Another approach might be an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. PS: Cleanup would also entail renaming some "WikiProject Foo/Members" pages to "/Participants" names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous CfD discussions of relevance (not quite complete)
  • 20 February 2006 [2] – A redundant pair of "participants" and "members" categories were merged in favor of "members". As far as I can determine, this (just short of ten years ago) was the last time that ever happened.
  • 14 June 2006 [3] – A "User in..." cat. merged to "Participants in..." (later "...participants"); no "members".
  • 20 July 2006 [4] – First attempt to standardize on "participants" came to no consensus; the WP:OWN runs very think in the opposition arguments.
  • 6 November 2006 [5] – Consensus to move all identified "members" categories to "participants"
  • 7 November 2006 [6] – Other collaboration-related categories all moved to participate-based language (from "member", "translator", etc.)
  • 10 November 2006 [7] – Upper-case "Participants" normalized to "participants"; this was repeated many times in later months and years.
  • 13 November 2006 [8] – Some push-back from fans of "members" resulted in "Members" being downcased to "members", not moved to "participants"; however, an examination of this decision (closed before WP:AADD was well-developed or cited much) reveals that the arguments in favor of "members" all amount to WP:ILIKEIT, while those for "participants" were raising the same legitimate concerns we still have today. consensus can change, and this would not have been closed the same way today. This split pattern continued for some time.
  • 30 November 2006 [9] – "Member" moved to "participants"; "participants" stated to be "convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject" in this and various other moves (and I did not see anyone challenge this in any of those moves). "Wikipedia Weekly Podcaster" moved to "WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants" on the same basis [10]. However, on 5 December the same claim was made about "members", and a "Users..." was moved to a "...members" [11].
  • 17 April 2007 [12] – But there were still those in favor of retaining two competing standards. Even I argued in favor of either/or naming back then, but others were already strongly in favor of "participants" exclusively. Cases of "Members of..." tended to become "...members" and of "Participants in..." to become "...participants" in cases before and after this date, except where otherwise noted.
  • 28 May 2007 [13] – A "participants" was proposed for merger into an existing "members" category, but the exact opposite was the result.
  • 11 August 2007 [14] – A "Wikipedians in Wikiproject ..." was moved to "...members", on the basis of one commenter's untested assertion that "members" was the dominant pattern.
  • 15 September 2007 [15] – Another isolated case of the same move, but on the basis of "member" being used in the userbox. Seriously?
  • 27 September 2007 [16] – By this point, a "Wikipedians in the X" convention has developed for non-wikiproject WP organizations (Article Rescue Squadron cat. moved from "Members" to "Wikipedians in", style; several other cases like this back to 2005). This obviates the last remaining argument in favor of ever using "members", but no one seems to notice at the time.
  • 29 September 2007 [17] – An odd-formatted one is moved to "participants" by default; "members" never suggested.
  • 4 October 2007 [18] – Watershed moment in the debate: 'Merge "members" into "participants". ... "Membership" as opposed to "participation" was one of the downfalls of Esperanza.' Another attempt to merge a "participants" into a "members" is merged the other way.
  • 4 October 2007 [19] – "Participants of..." moved to "...participants", "Members of..." moved to "...members", but others ("...Wikipedians", ".../Userbox", etc.) moved to "...participants", which is now the default. "Wikipedians in the X" convention reiterated for non-wikiproject WP organizations.
  • 20 December 2007 [20], [21] – Inexplicable results. "Wikipedians against notability" kept as-is, while "Wikipedians against censorship" was moved to "WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship members" (despite both categories being a "wikipoltical" identifier, not a project participation tag, and the default for projects long being "participants" by that point).
  • 17 January 2008 [22] - Move of "Wikipedian climbers" and "...cyclists" to "WikiProject Climbing members" and "...Cycling members" (among other proposals) rejected (the WPP Cycling members one is now a bluelink, however).
  • 7 May 2008 [23] – Another key rationale point in this debate's history. A (non-organization) "Wikipedians in..." is moved, despite "...participants" being the long-standing default, to "...members". The reasoning that was accepted for this was actually self-defeating, if the closer had thought about it: "rrename with preference for [...] members as editors may remain 'members' even when they are not currently active 'participants'." This amounts to an explicit declaration that th purpose of using "members" is the formation of WP:FACTIONs and building up a "strength in numbers" PoV-pushing army: 'Our projects counts more members than yours, so you lose.' In actual practice, properly run wikiprojects regularly sort inactive from active participants, and may even prune them from the list and category if they're inactive long enough. No interest of any kind is served by retaining "ghost", inactive users in project categories and lists just to pad them. If they user is still active in WP, but not the project, they can add themselves to a "Wikipedians interested in..." topical category that does not indicate bogus 'membership' in something.
  • 28 October 2008 [24], [25], [26] – Three cases of duplicate "members" and "participants" categories are all merged in favor of "participants".
  • 8 November 2008 [27] – "Wikipedians in the..." again imposed on non-wikiproject organization "members" category.
  • 8 November 2008 [28] – Redundant "members" and "participants" merged to "participants".
  • 7 April 2010 [29], [30] – Two pair of redundant "members" and "participants" categories merged to "participants".
  • 27 September 2010 [31] – Redundant "members" merged to "participants".
  • 11 October 2010 [32] – Outlier: a "User Projectname" moved to "Projectname members", again on the basis of the userbox wording, which is a senseless rationale.
  • 29 June 2014 [33] – Salient side discussion: "[E]ditors getting involved in a related WikiProject (i.e. where do you draw the line between "collaboration with" and "joining" a WikiProject?)". Redundant meta-wikiproject cats. merged on this reasoning, which applies to the current question equally (just substitute "participation in" for "collaboration with").
  • 31 August 2014 [34] – A "members" is merged into a "participants". Lack of standardization is commented upon.
  • Between 2008 and present, I also saw at least 5 CfRs for "Participants" → "participants" cleanup, and the already listed cases of "members" → "participants" changes, but only two cases of "Members" → "members", and 0 of "participants" → "members".
  • This is all being looked for manually. Because the terms "participants", "members", and "wikiproject" come up so frequently at CFD, it is difficult to find them all. One important one is missing: A discussion in which a large number of "members" cats. were moved to "participants" on the same basic rationale presented today. I think I participated in that one directly, and if so, it would have to be after April 2007. I'll try to find it by digging through my own CfD posts. 15:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR version: No decision to rename something else to either "members" or "participants" has gone the "members" route since October 2010, and most of them went to "participants" before then anyway. No proposal to rename a "participants" to a "members" has succeeded since February 2006. Almost every case of a proposal to rename a "members" to a "participants" has succeeded.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Whenever I'm not busy and I run across anything at any wikiproject that says "Members" I change it to "Participants", including project subpage moves. I've made hundreds of edits of this sort, here and there, over the last 10 years, and I've only been reverted two times that I recall. Most individual editors simply don't care, but the overall effect of the "membership" meme on WP is quite poisonous.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • This needs doing. Two recent discussions I've stumbled across have revolved around this "membership" ("ownership") issue, (one, two). However, the argument "it will sharply bias the responses, by alerting those with an interest in preserving the factionalizing to come vote against anything that starts dissolving it" has more than a whiff of the "restrict the discussion" attitude of membership/ownership. WP:Consensus is the key to a stable, enduring outcome which can be used as precedent on new projects, not a successful midnight raid. Bazj (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't what I meant. To clarify: I think it's a choice between a regular CfD, which will be auto-stacked with possessive !votes against such a neutralizing standardization (i.e. a WP:FALSECONSENSUS may result), or an RfC (covering "participants" vs. "members" more generally). I raised the issue at CfD because it already decided this before. I initially suggested maybe it could be speedied on the basis of the original CfD, but in doing several hours of research on previous CfRs, that early decision wasn't as solidly respected as I thought, so I've redacted the speedy idea. Preference has, however, remained and grown for "participants" in CfR discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was very fortunate that, when I first started editing, there were kind people over at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places who gave me friendly pointers when I made mistakes and really appreciated my local access. There are a couple WikiProjects with a hypercritical cliques that would have quickly drive me away from Wikipedia where the priority isn't good articles or even Wikipedia policy but doing things the way they've always been done. In fact, I still avoid several topic areas to avoid these WikiProjects. (And of course, most WikiProjects aren't active enough to either encourage or drive away editors.)
The counter-productive people at some WikiProjects use ethnicity, academic degrees, offline memberships or other unverifiable traits to claim they are more of an "expert" than other editors. I don't share your confidence that renaming these categories will change their outlook. But, I see no downside and it's worth a try. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you mean. The point is (as it was back in 2006!) to take away the "membership" stick, so no one can be whacked with it. It may not change certain editors' perception that they are WP:VESTED Members in Something Official and Officious™, but it may help change the diffuse FUD lingering in the average editors' mind about whether wikiprojects have special rights, and if that perceptions changes, then no amount of sabre-rattling by wikiproject OWNers will matter any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care which term is ultimately used because it all boils down to semantics anyway. But no matter what they are called, listed members/participants are indicating a hard inclusion that naturally gives their views greater weight in project-specific determinations (like how the project pages look or how the project is organized), although they carry no special weight in interpreting Wikipedia policies/guidelines (e.g., an RfC hosted on a WikiProject talk page about how to do a particular thing in articles allows anyone to participate in full capacity). Of course, anyone can participate in the tasks of any given project without signing up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, do we really need uniformity here? I can imagine that the two terms are being alternated depending on context. By the way, I'm completely fresh to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a question of uniformity but of the implications behind the words. To use an analogy in the news in the coming months, Participation would be akin to Open primaries in the United States, and Membership akin to closed primaries. Bazj (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is about collaboration, editor retention, and (ultimately) neutral point of view in content, not about typographic uniformity at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:17, 2 February 2016 (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:Demoniacs[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. Note that Category:Exorcised people was created during the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:COP, including WP:BLPCAT with 3 living people in the category, and WP:V
Q: What do Mother Teresa, an executed serial killer, a a living folk singer and Judas Iscariot all have in common?
A: They've all been possessed by demons. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified MagicatthemovieS as the category creator, tagged the BLP Noticeboard and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Religion. – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed this category from Mother Teresa, as it was unsupported in the article. Properly sourced, I have no issue with the category itself. Scr★pIronIV 13:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of exceedingly minuscule encyclopedic value. The fact is that some living persons have an exceedingly poor sourcing for this slightly contentious claim, and thus the category is better off deleted than remaining in situ. Collect (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to comply with WP:BLPCAT and WP:V Govindaharihari (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination reason— JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it possible to restrict it to "historical" demoniacs? Even so, I suppose it would be a category of limited utility... 8bitW (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exorcise Unverifiable, too vague ("possessed" by demons? "saw" a demon? "thinks" they were possessed?, and who can verify?). What's next, people who have seen their guardian angel? First Light (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, narrow scope and purge to Category:Exorcised people, since that is what they are notable for. (At least the people who really belong in the category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a difficult one. The New Testament refers to certain people as "demonised" (transliteration) or possessed by demons (traditional translation), usually in the context of the demons having been cast out. To that extent, the category is a legitimate one. However, scripture says that the devil (not a demon) entered into Judas Iscariot, so that he does not belong; and this refers to a short period at the end of his life: he does not belong. At the other extreme, for living persons, we are at the risk of libel, unless the people self-identify as demoniacs, normally in the context of being formerly possessed. In other historical contexts, I fear that this is a POV category. I am inclined to support Marcocapelle. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I actually wouldn't oppose Category:Bible people possessed by demons because it would solve WP:V (Is it in the Bible?: Y/N) and would exclude living people.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Peterkingiron that Judas Iscariot does not belong in the category anyway. I'm not against Category:Bible people possessed by demons but it may become difficult to populate such a category, as many biblical people possessed by demons remained anonymous and are unlikely to get their own WP article. Probably better served by a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go along with either of those options. We may get articles on some of the stories about a demon being cast out. Even of the subject is unnamed, an article about the story could go into the category: we will never know anything about rest of their Biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2016 (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:Android video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Android (robot) video games. Other related categories will be nominated separately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pinging @Hellknowz: Based on Category:Video games by theme, the proposed name would work better and create less confusion over Category:Android (operating system) games. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE see related category rename request that will take over a similar name to this one, for #Category:Android (operating system) games on January 29 -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't match the naming scheme currently in use. Perhaps you should make this a mass nomination of all the categories instead of singling out this one? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional oppose nominate all the theme categories instead of just one -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do I get a list of all of the categories like this one? Is there a category of categories? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the nominated category, click on the parent category (at the foot of the page). To show its contents here, use <categorytree>, see below. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category Android fiction not found
I don't know how to multi-nominate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: Don't worry, we can do this in a followup. --PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow. This is a classic DAB issue. If anything I prefer RevelationDirect's alternative, followed up by similar renames for other android categories to match the main article, per PanchoS. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2016 (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 on the autism spectrum[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 musicians and LGBT categories, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The recent companion list AfD revealed the opinion of many editors that reliable sources for autism diagnosis are not readily available. Apparently there is also a concern (cited to half a dozen different content policies) that grouping public figures according to autism diagnosis constitutes some kind of "false light" offense against autistic people. I do not agree with these criticisms and believe that they depend on extraordinary ad hoc interpretations of policy. But if they are assumed, then the categories are even worse off because they cannot have inline citations. I have occasionally pruned entries from the list and these categories where sources were absent or badly misrepresented, but if the possibility of sourcing is itself in doubt, then maintenance is a wasted effort. Therefore I raise the question of deleting them.
Note that this is a hierarchy, so deleting only the subcategories would typically transfer their entries into the parent category. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the musician and LGBT categories as selective overcategorization. Pass on the others. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all categories as they are; then, and only then, renominate to merge some certain categories in logical groupings. I am sorry to seem so strident, but, after the deletion less than 24 hours ago of the WP "List of people with autism spectrum disorders," the deletion of these categories (strangely, JUST these categories as there remain others including the WP category "Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum") would, in combination with the list deletion, amount to erasing any WP description of Asperger syndrome or Autism Spectrum Disorders in real life. Sure, the category for "fictional characters" would remain, but, autism isn't merely a fictional plot device. As with the list deletion, I see no difference between the categories in question and those of certain other diagnoses. Both are required to be based on the best, most reliable, source material available to the editor. It would appear, then, that WP wants to avoid even the mention of the lives of people with Asperger syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Perhaps, similar deletions should be made of other categories. Maybe then, the howls of scorn and ridicule might convince us to act otherwise. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asperger syndrome still exists within the ICD-10, though it will likely become part of the ICD-11 "spectrum" when it is published in the next year or two. Meanwhile, what do we do about those individuals who were clinically diagnosed with diagnostic terminologies which weren't "archaic" when the diagnoses were determined? A diagnosis isn't something that an individual "upgrades" like a cell-phone app. Unless there is evidence of a mistaken diagnosis (statistically rare), most individuals keep their diagnoses for life regardless of how the terminologies might change after the determination. But, the various suggested deletions or mergers in question don't accommodate these concerns. 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this diagnosis was a clean cutover to better reflect medical knowledge (like GRID to HIV), then I would say to move these into the autism categories but that's not the case. There is certainly some indication that some/many/most of the people diagnosed with Aspergers actually had a non-spectrum anxiety/social/other disorder (source). So, even though true Asperger is moving to the spectrum diagnosis, it doesn't mean the people with the current diagnosis are so I really think we need to wait for these people to get new diagnoses (if any) and go from there. If you want to hold off on dropping these categories until this delisting is final with the ICD-11 though, that's a reasonable compromise. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In clinical settings, diagnoses aren't tossed around with the kind of abandon that was suggested in a four-year-old opinion of one psychiatrist writing for The New York Times, while referencing the comedy television program South Park for reliable evidence. Certainly, there are clinicians who have failed to understand accurately, or stay current with, changing diagnostic criteria. But, as with all regulated professions, they are the rare exception, and certainly not the norm. Such underwhelming diagnoses exist also in all specialities, not just autism. In fact, because autism is the newest diagnostic juggernaut, world researchers and experienced experts, not mere clinicians, are making the disproportionate number of such diagnoses at research clinics and universities because there is actually a dearth of able diagnosticians in many nations due to the rapidly changing criteria. The World Health Organization is nearing its completion of a four-stage research project for its autism-related ICF functioning survey which will provide dozens, if not hundreds, of new functional and physical co-morbids and characteristics to the ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for better post-diagnostic treatment of autistic individuals. If the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 transition to an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) flummoxed some, wait until the ICD-11 rolls out its permutative variations in September 2016 or later. My point is this: Making perfect the enemy of good serves no one, including Wikipedia.org. The world's medical, psychological and functional diagnoses change frequently and will continue to do so regardless of what WP does. Should WP, therefore, delete whole WP lists and categories every time any diagnostic criteria are updated? It is precisely this terminological quandary that informs professional diagnosticians and their diagnosed clients to accept a diagnosis as a lifelong "as is" status unless and until compelling evidence suggests otherwise. Clients could request and receive new diagnoses with the new diagnostic terminologies if they really wished to do so, but, autism diagnoses range between $1,000 and $2,500 each ... leaving most already-diagnosed individuals little choice about pursuing renamed diagnoses. Moreover, the diagnosticians themselves agree that, because the diagnoses of Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified are now subsumed into the DSM-5 ASD diagnostic criteria, the matter is, for all practical purposes, "a clean cutover." 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In clinical settings, diagnoses were tossed around with abandon even in top autism centers (National Institutes of Health study) which is why it was delisted. Many autism advocates disagree with the medical establishment on cause, treatment and these diagnosis though.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, advocates aren't diagnosticians. Diagnosticians are expected to follow the published diagnostic criteria to provide a lifelong diagnosis to each client unless and until a compelling reason to change the diagnosis is presented. The advocate in me says we should just call every individual who is diagnosed with autism "autistic" and move on, but the amateur diagnostician in me knows that would invite malpractice. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On Parent/Eliminate All Subcategories for Differing Reasons Per the Asperger syndrome article, this is no longer a medically recognized diagnosis, it's like categorizing people by female hysteria. Idiot savant/autistic savant seems starkly derogatory. Dual upmerge the LGBT category as I don't see that as a meaningful intersection. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two categories, neutral on others. The two main arguments for deletion aren't really good arguments. Re nominator's argument: when plenty people are characterized by this diagnosis, it does not make sense to delete the category because there are also wrong articles in the category. Other argument: the fact that Asperger no longer exists isn't convincing either, because it is still a defining characteristic because Asperger has been a valid diagnosis.
Secondarily, this applies to all 5 nominated categories, if anything changed then merge instead of plain delete, at least the contents of these categories should not completely vanish. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a partial or overall merger is ultimately desired, I support Marcocapelle's opinion supra that the "People on the autism spectrum" and "People with Asperger syndrome" categories should remain while related subordinate categories are enrolled or merged within the two remaining categories. Alternatively, if a single category were to be retained or created anew, it could be titled as "Autistic people" or "People with autism" wherein its lead section should, by way of WP links and brief description, refer to the former diagnoses that are now subsumed within the DSM-5 diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (and eventually the ICD-11) and, by doing so, give context to the inclusion of subjects with differently named diagnoses. The lead section could then be edited as needed when future criteria are changed or updated. After all, additional details about each subject is just a click away. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would favor people-first language in this case. We need to be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS to assume a 2009 Asperger's diagnosis translates into a 2016 autism spectrum though since the new, stricter guidelines may reduce total spectrum diagnoses by 31% (source)RevelationDirect (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support RevelationDirect's opinion to rename "Category:People with Asperger syndrome" as "Category:People previously diagnosed with Asperger syndrome." It is technically reasonable, but I am concerned that those individuals who were diagnosed with Asperger syndrome will likely see the phrase "previously diagnosed" as construing the facts to suggest that they no longer are diagnosed or that their diagnoses are being made subordinate to other diagnoses. Because the American Psychiatric Association has stated publicly that Asperger syndrome (and other diagnoses) are now subsumed within its DSM-5 diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, they would have a valid complaint. Furthermore, if we are watching for any potential liability on the part of Wikipedia.org, perhaps we should be very accurate in any representation of the diagnoses given to individuals by diagnosticians. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't totally disagree with this proposed rename but I find it a quite redundant addition. Everyone who has been diagnosed has been diagnosed in the past anyway, and expressly adding the word "previously" here suggests these people later got a different diagnosis - which in fact need not be the case at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially as many of the persons are not officially medically diagnosed as being Autistic - which means we are then placing a person in a contentious category without strong sourcing as determinable fact. Collect (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which categorized "persons are not officially medically diagnosed as being Autistic"? Shouldn't such mistaken categorizations be edited to improve the source materials? If editors deleted whole categories routinely based on one or more mistaken categorizations, Wikipedia.org would be left with no categories. Repair where you can, delete only when you must. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savant Syndrome is a WP article and a very good one at that. It describes current research which shows that, "[a]lthough termed a syndrome, it is not recognized as a mental disorder nor as part of a mental disorder in medical manuals such as the ICD-10 or the DSM-5. […] Approximately half of savants are autistic; the other half often have some form of central nervous system injury or disease. Among those with autism, it is estimated that 10% have some form of savant abilities." Thus, the terms "Savant" and "Autistic Savant" as applied to individuals who are also diagnosed with a developmental disability are accurate and certainly not derogatory. While an overall category for "Savants" would, by definition, include those who are Autistic savants, I wonder if the world’s leading authority on savants, Darold Treffert, would agree with deleting the WP category "Autistic savants" when about half of all savants are also autistic. It simply doesn't seem logical. 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is being on the spectrum notable for each of these folks? Some may be, but frankly maybe some not. I also think that medical definitions probably vary among various countries, so is "Asperger syndrome" really axed world-wide or is this a localized re-set? And what is the basis for categorization? Self-labeling, which is what we tend to do for religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and virtually every disease, condition, etc. If so, it has the same problem as those categories but does kind of addressed Collect's concern above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability affects only a subject's inclusion within a Wikipedia.org article. Proving the notability of each and every detail within a subject's article isn't required. For example, the WP article about Adolf Hitler includes mentions of his ancestry, his time working as an artist and his being born into a Catholic home. None of these article statements are notable. Should they be removed from the article or cause de-categorization of the article? Similarly, American actress Daryl Hannah is notable for her acting career while also having been diagnosed with autism. If we removed Hannah's reported autism, should we remove the reference to Hitler's paintings which aren't clearly related to his status as fuhrer of the German Reich? Of course, not. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, Delete; from Wikipedia:Categorization: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics" Being on/formerly on some spectrum of having autism is no more "defining" than being the eldest child, being married, having outlived one's spouse, or other things that on a personal level are momentous but we don't categorize here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the "defining characteristics" of autism were made clear throughout the decades since it was initially recognized by Eugen Bleuler, Hans Asperger and Leo Kanner. More importantly for this discussion, the diagnostic criteria described by the DSM-5 is definite. In certain disorders, the use of the term "spectrum" is used to describe the variety of ways that a disorder might manifest itself. A good example of this is Tic disorder wherein Tourette syndrome is defined as "part of a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes provisional, transient and persistent (chronic) tics." This WP article enjoys the companion WP Category:People with Tourette syndrome that enjoys not a single complaint, let alone any about the indefinite criteria of its diagnosis (or WP subjects who are listed as having the spectrum disorder). Insofar as Tourette syndrome (like autistic syndromes and disorders) is one of several disorders on a spectrum without controversy (like the Autism Spectrum Disorder spectrum), perhaps the focus on the autism spectrum is misplaced or exaggerated. 2001:558:6008:3B:A8B6:5DB0:25C5:6BD5 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DSM is American and the ICD is more common in Europe. The DSM-5 has removed/combined Asperger's and the next version of the ICD (11) is expected to do the same. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the DSM-5 is primarily an American publication of diagnostic criteria, while the ICD-10 is primarily a European publication. But, both are used by some diagnosticians worldwide regardless of their locations. In advance of the 2013 publication of the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association published a statement ( http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ) which described that, while adding newer, more accurate, autism-related diagnositic criteria to the DSM-5, "[a]nyone diagnosed [previously] with one of the four pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) from DSM-IV should still meet the criteria for ASD in DSM-5 or another, more accurate[,] DSM-5 diagnosis." This statement makes clear that the diagnosis of Asperger syndrome whenever it was (or is) rendered, is still a valid diagnosis regardless of its new diagnostic terminology. 2001:558:6008:3B:7099:BD1E:9270:535E (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What diagnostic guidelines are used by psychiatrists in West Asia/Muslim Countries? Africa? East and/or south-east Asia, Australia, Oceania, South Asia, Central Asia? Do psychiatrists in all these places generally diagnose with Autism? Also, in the 1950s and 1960s in the US the diagnoses of Autism was much more limited than the present one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the ICD is a U.N. World Health Organization publication, I suspect strongly that most of the diagnosticians in the regions to which you referred would use its diagnostic criteria (which, by the way, continues to provide criteria for diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome (F84.5) at least until ICD-11 is published in the next 2-3 years). Of course, certain nations' health offices might have their own criteria, but I suspect most use the ICD. 2001:558:6008:3B:65DA:B420:D772:CA2E (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not really defining to many people, and for people before 1985 is going to almost always be based on later diagnosis that may or may not have enough resources to work. Beyond this, with people after 1985 there are serious BLP issues. For obvious reasons most people who are classed on the autism spectrum do not broadcast this fact. For example if an editor was to admit it here in Wikipedia it would then be used as grounds to attack their contributions. I have already seen Wikipedia attacked for having too many editors who are on the autism spectrum, I can just imagine the type of one and off Wikipedia attacks that would result if someone admitted to having autism. So we should delete these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ICD enjoys worldwide jurisdictional applicability and usability even if a nation’s health office or private organization chooses to adopt its own criteria, e.g. the DSM in the United States. Diagnoses of autism conditions are currently at about 1-2 percent of any population. This suggests to me that the WP categories reflect the accurate predictability of the diagnosis of autism conditions. Your description of the rate of those who disclose their autism diagnoses, with example, appears to be speculative. Please cite examples of any outstanding category inclusions. 2001:558:6008:3B:65DA:B420:D772:CA2E (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally the problems that there is not a standard world-wide definition of autism mentioned above should be considered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ICD diagnostic criteria for autism conditions are a "standard world-wide definition" in that they enjoy worldwide jurisdictional applicability and usability even if a nation’s health office or private organization chooses to adopt its own criteria. Where criteria differs from the ICD, e.g. the DSM in the United States, the criteria is almost identical (in fact, versions of the ICD inform subsequent versions of the DSM, and vice versa) and is becoming more so. Please cite examples of any substantive criterion differences. 2001:558:6008:3B:65DA:B420:D772:CA2E (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that Asperger syndrome is an "archaic" medical diagnosis is a misuse of the term archaic. The DSM-V was published in 2013. So 4, that is four years ago Asperger's Syndrome was standard psychiatric diagnosis in the United States. There are people in their 30s who were first diagnosed with this condition in their 20s. It might be "not current", but it is not by any stretch of the imagination archaic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However people previously diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome would be limited to those who had actually been diagnosed, and so would end up creating an odd cut in 2013, not do to anything about the people, just their actually being diagnosed by then. Just to make things more fun some people get rediagnosed because of further study, so would someone diagnosed with ADHD and later rediagnosed with Asperger's be put in Category:People previously diagnosed with ADHD. Would we put someone in the previously diagnosed with Asperger's category if they were diagnosed with such, even if later psychiatrists in evaluating them decided that had been a mistaken diagnosis and placed them in a new one. To make things even more fun those diagnosed with Asperger's were primarily male, but those who almost fit the diagnosis were female at a much higher rate. One theory is that the way our society socializes males and females makes females less likely to fit the diagnosis for Asperger's. So the differences are not internal psyciatric but caused by large amounts of societal pressure. Which in turn leads to the question do such categories have any meaning when applied to people in different times in different societies?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects of WP articles who are known to have been diagnosed accurately should be categorized according to WP guidelines which recommend using the most accurate categorizations available. I believe that they are so categorized. If there are any which aren’t so categorized, any editor may correct their categorization without necessarily deleting the whole categories. 2001:558:6008:3B:65DA:B420:D772:CA2E (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (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:Outlines by continents[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) 00:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Awkward title has been renamed Category:Outlines of continents to parallel Category:Outlines of countries. Articles have been moved, the category redirected to new title, the category creator notified, and nothing links to the old one (as I post this). I would have speedied this, but it might technically not match any of those criteria. I'll let an admin speedy it if desired. - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we could sort out the outlines we have (such as some found at Category:Outlines of regions and any others that are not yet categorized by region) to divide it out by continent, and add subcategories to this one for that use. -- `70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the "of" target for the cat-redirect is the better name. However redirects are cheap and keeping a cat-redirect serves to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, even as a redirect it's pretty useless, even confusing as it may give the impression to contain all kinds of geographical outlines, grouped by continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (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/2016_January_31&oldid=1084319330"