Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church[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/rename. MER-C 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There doesnt appear to be an intended distinction. Rathfelder (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is agreed then these would follow:

If it isnt agreed then I think we should at least agree to have them all either affiliated or associated. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Doublespeak Award[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 02:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need whatsoever for a single article to have its own eponymous category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IEEE people[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 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have been mixing this up with another cat, because I was certain that a bunch of people had been placed into this category. As it stands right now, there's only the three subcats. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sure why it hurts having one more level of organization; maybe bits and bytes are getting expensive. fgnievinski (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not about bits and bytes, but about easier navigation as a reader. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Medical Association people[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 02:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simply having worked for or being a member of the AMA is WP:NONDEFINING. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Bunch of journal/magazine people 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, please renominate separately. MER-C 03:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
many similar categories ...
    • I have argued for keeping this one, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have argued for keeping this one, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename this Editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association. This is significantly defining, and the articles are all about editors. Rathfelder (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply having worked or written for a specific publication is a textbook case of WP:NONDEFINING. (See also this and this CfDs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have looked at this list several times and it is being changed every few minutes. Category:Fooian magazine people should all be removed. All with subcats should be removed (eg Category:Playboy people, because delete should be upmerge to something). I would urge the nominator to split this into several more coherent noms. Oculi (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: that's the thing. The deletes of those categories are not upmerges, because those listed in the categories (e.g. Playboy) don't have roles that fit in the other categories. They're pretty much just general staff, e.g. Brian Karem. Some exceptions might exist though. Also I'm pretty much done changing the above lists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend, for example, to remove Category:Playboy cartoonists from Category:Playboy? DexDor (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Category:Magazine people just doesn't work. Oculi (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Category:Magazine people by role‎ and Category:Comics people‎ would be the only subcats of that category left and Arthur Lavine is neither. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So put that one in Category:Playboy and let's be done with it. That doesn't justify the existence of Category:Playboy people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one of many such examples. If a (partial) upmerge is needed then that should be made clear (e.g. in the nomination). DexDor (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least some of these. Category:Harvard Advocate alumni and Category:Harvard Lampoon alumni, for example, are not the same kind of thing as "category: someone who once had a job at such-and-such magazine". There is substantial reliable sourcing that establishes historical interest in these publications as giving rise to notability in subsequent careers. See also the earlier CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 30#Harvard student publications and the subsequent RfC at Talk:The Harvard Crimson#RfC on categories; there has been fairly recent discussion of these categories with a consensus that they are appropriate. At a minimum, I would suggest removing from this nomination, and keeping, any categories that end in the word "alumni" instead of the word "people". I'm not going to go through every entry in this over-broad nomination, but I would not be surprised if there were other inappropriate entries here as well. Maybe it would be a good idea to withdraw this nomination, and come back with a nomination that has had more WP:BEFORE behind it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni and people are synonymous here. They're just people that wrote in those publications. Some were EiCs, which might warrants its own category, but it s not this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC, to which I linked above, that decided otherwise for purposes of categorization. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that most of these are not at all defining, but I've picked out two which are editors of very high profile medical publications which I think are defining. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can have their own categories if it's particularly relevant (e.g. Category:The New Yorker editors), but those (e.g. Category:The New Yorker people) are not these categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, while upmerging subcategories. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - this is an overbroad nom collecting together different sorts of categories which need separate and careful consideration. It is far too easy to delete a swathe of categories leaving a complete mess behind, which is what this ill-considered nom will do. Oculi (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered saying it that way, too. I'm going to leave it as a "keep" for just the two that I discussed above, with a strong plea to whoever closes this discussion to not treat it as all-or-nothing. In other words, it would be awful if everything were deleted just because some should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These are defining for all the people involved. Dimadick (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having written an op-ed for The Weekly Standard at some point in your life is not a defining thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment make each of one of them a container category with subcategories modeled after Category:Magazine people by role. Rationale: being an editor of magazine X is a defining personal characteristic; maybe also being a regular staff writer and illustrator? fgnievinski (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. all .Consider nominating some. I don't want to specify which , because they're in very different fields and very different importance. For any major magazine with a long life, a category for editors is appropriate, and possibly these should be renamed and limited accordingly -- these cateogries arecertainly defining. For contributors, in some cases, perhaps, especially for politically important publications. It ideally should be limited to important contributors, though I do not know how that could be defined. But I think having written for the Weekly Standard, for example, is very much a defiing category, in view of its particular organization, tho there's a problem with some that have changed politics over the years, like the Nation . But this will have to be discussedcateogry by category. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non defining for any of the subjects so categorised. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all is someone wants to create a "Managing editors of XXX" category for a periodical to contain those whose notability is defined by being a managing editor of XXX, that'd be appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the process of leaving Wikipedia, but I've been feeling worried about this discussion and I want to tie up a loose end before this discussion ends. I agree, in part, that just being a person who was associated in some way with a publication is not inherently defining. But in addition to being an editor, discussed already, there are multiple other ways in which being a "person" of a publication can indeed be defining. A long-time featured columnist, a long-time reporter whose reports are associated in memory with the publication, someone who created covers, photos, illustrations, or cartoons that have acquired iconic status in relation to a publication. These and more are unquestionably defining. I realize, of course, that one can split these up into multiple subcategories, but that complexity may not always be the best course of action. Therefore, while it may be possible that some of the nominated categories should just be deleted, there are likely to be numerous others where it is appropriate only to go through each of them and purge those entries that are non-defining. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Library of Australia people[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 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having worked for the NLA at some point int your life is WP:NONDEFINING. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategory should remain in the tree, per Randykitty below. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Academic journal-related lists[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 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT about to be empty cat Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, there is one article in the category probably soon to be deleted. But if that article is kept after all, the category should be merged somewhere instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a useful cat. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Category:Slovene ethnic territory[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 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be revisited/deleted because it is misleading, i.e. not just Slovenian ethnics live in today's Slovenia. Btw. the category also includes Carinthia, Styria among other's, that have as weell not been solely ethnic Slovenian territories neither today, nor in the past (but as well Austrian, german, Italian, etc.)..... KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle but this actually concerns a fundamental question whether we should categorize territories by ethnicity or language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Did you not answer this question while posing it? Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/Marco. Categories like this also often cause categorization loops (Fooland-Fooish-Fooland...). DexDor (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ethnic territory" will lead us into a minefield. And territories dont speak. Lets not go there. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a POV irredentist category that can serve no good use. Out of a recent spree of similar Balkan nationalist categories, I have also seen Category:Bulgarian land which has similar defaults. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Category:Polish-speaking countries and territories[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 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containing only one entry, being as well even dubious, since the entity along with today's Poland is not, was not or has not always been a Polish territory or country, or Polish speaking territory, but German, Lithuanian, etc., then all similar names with categories could be put under every country, which formely shared an aboriginal part of the country before the massive border changes in the past century, even having large ethnic population still. KIENGIR (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle but this actually concerns a fundamental question whether we should categorize territories by ethnicity or language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Irredentist POV is not the basis of Wikipedia categorization. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Territories dont speak.Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rathfelder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lazarus taxa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Category:Lazarus taxa

Category:Catholic propagandists in the Balkans[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:Catholic missionaries in the Balkans. MER-C 03:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very narrow category may not be defining. Wrongfully applied to members of the Congregation Propaganda Fide (propaganda in Latin does not mean the same thing as the English coinage.) Elizium23 (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of talk page message
The removal proposal is very trendy

I have nothing to do with Catholicism, unlike the proponent of deleting the category. The category follows the factual about personalities. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2019 (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/2020_January_2&oldid=935041813"