Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Category:Conventions in Hawaii[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is empty with the exception of the subcategory Category:Convention centers in Hawaii. Convention centers are a building and shouldn't be in a events category.
  • Also propose deleting-

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or is it merge upwards?). Not much hope of populating this level, I think. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment meanwhile User:PanchoS added some articles to these categories. @WilliamJE and Peterkingiron: please check if you wish to revise your rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- The additions concern anime events in several places. These appear to be events for which the convention centres are regular venues. However I am not sure they are "conventions" (though I do not know). Since all the ones I saw refer to Japanese anime. The need to be collected in "anime events in United states" (or such like - no view on precise name) and some higher level category on annual events in these states. We have not allowed entertainment spaces that regularly hold snooker tournaments to be categorised as snooker venues; and we do not allow performance/venue intersections more widely. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise - the category is conventions in [state], not convention centers in [state]. The articles should therefore contain information on conventions in these states, not on convention centers. There are more conventions than just anime conventions, and these can be added too. But it's a start. I agree convention centers should not be listed, but that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator Almost all of these categories could be nominated under WP:SMALLCAT. @Peterkingiron:, what do you think?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree. The Japanese anime events could probably be moved to state categories of "festivals", which would again leave these (or most of them) empty but for the convention centers subcat, which could be merged to something else - perhaps venues. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had closed this discussion as keep based on User:Smartyllama's unarguable comment that there are more conventions than just anime conventions, which implies these categories have realistic potential for growth, which implies deletion per WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply. Apparently the closure was considered to be a case of WP:BADNAC and has been reverted. I'm leaving it further to an admin to make the final close. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, as the subtree's creator of some of these. Obviously, there are countless notable conventions going on besides anime conventions: political conventions, industry, trade and professional conventions, you name it. Clearly WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply, and in fact granularity seems perfectly appropriate to the topic. Inclusion of convention centers I don't care. We may also link them as related categories, however I thought we were trying to avoid cat see also clutter in favor of subcategorization. --PanchoS (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As creator, it would be helpful if you would populate these categories further though. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think these categories can be populated over time. I also think that having the convention centers as a subset is acceptable.Jllm06 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Red Eagle, 4th class[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 4th tier decoration. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2017 (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:Commanders of the Military Merit Order (Württemberg)[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 2nd tier decoration (see Military Merit Order (Württemberg)). Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2017 (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:Knights of the Military Merit Order (Württemberg)[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 3rd tier decoration (see Military Merit Order (Württemberg)). Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2017 (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:Knights 2nd class of the Friedrich Order[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 2nd tier decoration. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (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:Sports competitions in Moscow[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category duplicates Sport in Moscow. Also merge to Category:Sports competitions in Russia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:18, 21 May 2017 (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:Mosques funded by the Saudi Arabian government[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an overcategorization. We should not categorize buildings by their ownership or sponsorship. TM 12:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This means of spreading Wahhabi Islam is a serious issue. It may be an unusual category, but I think it is probably significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then write an article on the topic. It's inappropriate to group buildings by their funders.--TM 21:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A government funding the building of mosques in other nations, particularly in Asia (eg Pakistan with the $120 million Faisal Mosque, and in Bangladesh possibly $1 billion to build 560 mosques), in Africa and Europe raises significant, encyclopedic issues. Recommend all this justifies an article. Magpiepb (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That these mosques received some funding from a government is a factoid and definitely not defining. Checking several articles in the category and their funding sources are given little coverage. The actual functions of the mosque are what make it notable, not who funded it, and thus this is a non-defining category.--TM 21:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith. That subjective position would rule out a large number of Wiki Categories, such as 'Category:People from Phoenix, Arizona' or 'Category:Bridges completed in 1957'. 'Category:Mosques funded by the Saudi Arabian government' complies with WP:CAT. Magpiepb (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a mosque funded by a certain government unique? All religious buildings are funded by various entities, both non-profit and governmental. This is literally true about every single building in existence. There is nothing that connects these buildings other than that they all receive some portion of their funds from a certain government.--TM 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most mosques are literally funded by people from all over the world. When the mosque asks for donations, it doesn't restrict them by particular nationality. In fact, if you go through the mosques actually in this category, most mosques which list Saudis as funders also list Kuwaitis or other nationalities as funders too. So why don't we have a category on Mosques funded by Kuwait? I'm afraid this category may be abused as a coatrack for pushing a certain POV.VR talk 08:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside: note this category has been applied without adequate sourcing to many articles. For example, in this article the source actually said: "He has claimed that the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Sweden told him that the Saudi government would donate one million US dollars towards building a mosque in Reykjavík. The Muslim congregation in Iceland said they had never heard of this money" Based on this evidence alone it is very inappropriate to categorize that mosque as "Mosques funded by the Saudi Arabian government".VR talk 08:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct Reykjavík Mosque was not funded by the Saudis, but rather than quoting (the above) a "Grapevine opinion" a RS says. > > > "The President of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson expressed concern that Saudi Arabian financing of a Reykjavík mosque will fuel radical Islam in Iceland, and he was, shocked to the point of paralysis when he learned last March, in a meeting with Saudi Arabian Ambassador, that the government of Saudi Arabia had decided to interfere in Icelandic religious life by donating one million US Dollars to the planned mosque".Magpiepb (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a mosque funded by Saudi Arabia unique? A Saudi financed mosque differs from most other mosques in that, "Wahhabi mosques are financed all over the world by Saudi Arabia. In Germany, many dangerous Islamists come from these communities"., "In India, from 2011 to 2013, some 25,000 Saudi clerics arrived bearing more than $250 million to build mosques and universities and hold seminars. These institutions and clerics preach the specifically Saudi version of Sunni Islam, the extreme fundamentalist strain known as Wahhabism or Salafism . . . Saudi princes funded the explosive growth of madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan . . (teaching) . . students they have a sacred duty to fight infidels". and "The Saudis build Muslims mosques and madrassas but not hospitals and universities". Many more responses to the question can be provided.
Your answers to the question 'What makes a building designed by a certain architect unique?' would apply equally to > 'What makes a mosque funded by Saudi Arabia unique? Refer '[Category:Buildings and structures by architect]' Magpiepb (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed "The Saudis build Muslims mosques and madrassas but not hospitals and universities". That's obviously false. For example, Saudi Arabia financed the construction of Islamabad General Hospital, and they are funding the construction of a university for 5,000 students in Afghanistan (along with building mosques there, of course).
The comment shows what I'm worried about: that this category is being used to push an ill-informed POV.VR talk 22:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hospitals and Universities are nice. But, keep in mind Hillary Clinton has said, "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide". Magpiepb (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2017 (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:Banking in Tasmania[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Banking in Australia has no separate state categories - Banks does.

The category was created on the assumption that Tasmania was a separate country, as a former resident I am sure it is not. Banking in Australia is a sufficient category for the purpose. JarrahTree 10:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Agree with the nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2017 (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:Renaissance fair[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One Category is Renaissance fair, another is Category:Renaissance fairs fail to see why we need two so similar JarrahTree 09:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge to Category:Renaissance fairs. There seems to be enough content to keep one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one is a topic category and the other is a set category, it is not unusual to have both types of categories next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No object to renaming for clarity, but as Marocapelle says, the two cats are distinct and it's appropriate to have two. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it looks absurd, but if there is validity to marcocapelle's understanding of the issue, then perhaps someone smarter than me can write something in main space identifying and explaining the difference - and saving somebody elses time down the line as to why one 's' makes all the difference - JarrahTree 01:21, 27 May 2017 (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:Business theory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Management. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criteria, there is no article Business theory either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (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:Political pundits[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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the term "pundit" isn't used in any of the British, Canadian or Dutch articles that I checked, presumably this is a case of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - pundit seems to be used in journalese - commentator is a much better term JarrahTree 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you say we should rename the American and other subcats too? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem with almost everything to do with project space (politics and law projects seem the closest fit so far), which is in general empty for the category tree; if there are pundits anywhere, I would support rename - great term (great for cricket I would suspect), but hardly encyclopediac - assuming that is where we are heading - neutral intelligble heading/term JarrahTree 08:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No objection to the rename (no great need for it either), but please lose "British" in favour of "UK". I don't see a need to split any narrower than that (so lose English and Scottish too) but there is really no virtue to excluding NI from the overall grouping. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "pundit" in the US is different and more specific than "political commentator". Pundit has the connotation that the commentator has an overblown sense of authority or self importance.--Nowa (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Pundit" is not a term widely used outside the United States. AusLondonder (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the nomination is relisted, the remaining non-American siblings may be added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2017 (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:Armenian ombudsmen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming convention in Category:Ombudsmen by country is "Ombudsmen in [Country]" rather than "[Nationality] ombudsmen". The key characteristic here is not the person's birth nationality, but the country in which they actually served as ombuds (which may be the same country, but does not have to be — see, frex, Al Hutchinson, a Canadian who served as an ombudsman in Northern Ireland and thus his Canadianness is irrelevant to his ombudsmanness.) These are the only two outliers, and should be renamed for conformity with the convention. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The important thing is where they operate, not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2017 (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:Ombudswomen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). A merge is not needed, all articles are in the tree of Category:Ombudsmen by country already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gendered category for an occupation, where gender does not have a WP:DEFINING relationship with the occupation as required per WP:CATEGRS. This is not an occupation where women are segregated from men as in sports or acting, nor is it an occupation where reliable sources exist to analyze whether women do the job differently than men do as in politics or writing — the only discernible basis for a gendered category here is the admittedly unfortunate fact that the standard job title happens to still have a man/men suffix in it. (While there are certainly a few female ombuds who have requested that they be addressed as "ombudswoman" rather than "ombudsman", it's far more common to see the term degendered as "ombudsperson" than it is to actually see women referred to as "ombudswomen".) As always, Wikipedia's goal is not a comprehensive system of gendering every category that exists to hold people -- we implement gender categories only where gender has a defining relationship with the occupation, but this doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2017 (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/2017_May_21&oldid=1138411209"