Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7[edit]

Category:Signers of the Humanist Manifesto[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. Well researched is not the same as defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining of its signatories and also includes signers of three different documents. Each of the articles about the individual documents already includes a list of signatories so no separate list article is needed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is already well done researched. I've used this category page already twice for research I've done on other projects. I find it useful and I'm sure others do as well.Sgerbic (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with keeping. It is indeed well researched, and having the signatories of all three manifestos in a single source is valuable. I don't see any particular benefit in erasing this work.Dustinlull (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The members of this category come from diverse fields and it would be hard to see how they are connected without this category. There are three different documents but those documents were intended to update the previous version. Some individuals signed two or even three versions. Allecher (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above WP:ILIKEIT arguments do not address that this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the signatories. Category:Signatories by document could grow huge (e.g. "Signatories of letter to <newspaper> on <date>") if not limited/deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This doesn't appear to be defining for those who signed. The fact that the category is accurate or "well researched" is kind of beside the point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We avoid categorizing people by having signed a document in almost all cases. I would actually support never categorizing anybody by such, but in a few cases it might be notable. In these cases it is not, especially when there are three different documents involved. We have lists that cover the issue better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DexDor, JPL, and GoodO. Signing this document is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its signatories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I assume (without having checked) that there is a list in the article. This is much too like a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – yes, there are lists within the articles on each manifesto. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 11 August 2013 (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.

Converts from various religions[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. However concerns were raised about categories in this area so there may be a need to do something. So bringing some of this back, probably with changes, is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have two redundant sets of categories that deal with conversions from a religion (or irreligion). If you are a former Hindu, you are a convert from Hinduism. If you are a former Muslim, you are a convert from Islam. If you are a former atheist, you are a convert from atheism. We don't need both sets of categories. Category:Religious converts contains subcategories for the various brands of Christianity and also has "Converts to xxxxx" categories and "Converts from x to y" categories, so my preference would be to move all of the "Former xxxxx" categories into "Converts from xxxxx" categories and merge Category:People by former religion into Category:Religious converts) and so my suggestion is that we merge all of the "Former xxxxx" categories into "Converts from xxxxxx". --B (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose Maybe something needs to be done, but this is definitely not the right solution. The "Converts from" categories are container categories indexing "Converts from X to Y" subcats; but the "former X" categories also contain people who aren't converts to anything; they're just lapsed into irreligion. Possibly the solution is to reverse the merge so that the "Former X" categories replace the "convert from X" categories as parents to the "converts from X to Y" groups. Seyasirt (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Seyasirt - To take a semi-serious example, one does not assume that someone who is a "former footballer" is necessarily a convert to a different team sport. The logical answer is "former X-ist" covers anyone who was once an adherent of X-ism, and it is normally conversion to something that is important, so "convert to X-ism" would be a sub-category of "X-ists". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The idea that people "lapsed into irreligion" does not really work when we are treating agnosticism as a religion. The people were Roman Catholic, and they converted themselves to being not Roman Catholic. This is an active change, no matter what they become afterward, be it an irreligionist hedonist, a Mormon, an atheist, a Christian with no clear denominational identification who only clearly is not a Catholic, or a Muslim. Converts from covers all possible cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, that is just not how it works in the real world. Some people make a definite commitment to an atheistic or agnostic position, and some people just stop going to church. Also, I would point out that if we stuck with using only "former" and abandoned "converted from", there would be no grounds here for arguing over the lapsed, because "former" is far less arguable. Seyasirt (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one cannot convert from "atheist" or "agnostic"; there is nothing to convert "from" unless we are going to take the position that all babes of no faith are "converted" upon baptism, etc. into their parents' faith. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C. S. Lewis is widely described as a convert to Christianity, he converted from atheism. A convert is someone who adopts the faith, many people who convert to various religions were atheists before converting. If someone at age 25 becomes a Mormon, are they any less a convert because they were an atheist than a Roman Catholic. That argument does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Seyasirt and GraemeLeggett. I think you can be a "former X" without being a "convert to Y". And if you didn't convert to anything I don't think it's appropriate to speak of converting from something. There are many people in the world today who best describe their "religious status" as "unaffiliated", and many of them were "former X"s, but I doubt many of them would describe themselves as religious "converts"—whether to or from anything. I would reserve the "converts from" categories mostly for people who actively converted to a different religion—not for the non-affiliated or for those who became atheists or agnostics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2013 (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:John Rabe award recipients[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. Listify if you want, but there are only two articles, Teruyuki Kagawa and Andreas Maislinger, in the category so this will be a simple delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_11#Category:John_Rabe_Award_recipients. Note: This category has different capitalisation to the category that was recently deleted. DexDor (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2013 (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:Dutch female footballers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are the same, and "nationality women's footballers" are consistent with other categories in Category:Women's association football players Mentoz86 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Obviously we don't need both. You could perhaps make a case for 'female' being preferable to 'women' although, as stated, the other categories are consistent. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2013 (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 Courage Award for the Arts[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-WP:DEFINING award recipients category (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Courage Award for the Arts#Recipients. DexDor (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This award is not notable to these people. It would not be listed as a major biographical point on Julian Assange for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- List exists. As far as I can make out Yoko Ono gives a prize to whom she wishes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (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:Light armoured vehicles[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Armoured cars, Category:Military light utility vehicles, Category:Wheeled armoured personnel carriers and many others. Categorizing by level of armour isn't really workable as (1) many vehicles come in variants with different levels of armour, (2) many vehicles are armoured in parts (e.g. underneath against mines), (3) for many (old or new) vehicles we may not know what level of STANAG 4579 the armour is (without WP:OR). It's better to categorize by broader classes of vehicle (truck, APC, IFV, tank etc) combined with country-of-origin, period and tracked/wheeled - that way it's easier to find things. Note: These cats were recently renamed. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - selective (as you say OR) choice of Stanag level aside, it seems axiomatic that what was heavy armour at some time in the distant past would now be considered light. And unlike light tank etc there is no article matching the category. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (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:Current Franche-Comté Regional Councillor[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:Franche-Comté Regional Councillors. There is no support for the current category. There also does not appear to be a consensus to merge as proposed. I have no problem if there is an additional discussion/nomination if there is an issue with the new name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization is normally by permanent characteristics, not current status. Another option instead of merge would be to rename this category to remove the word "current". DexDor (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2013 (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:Greater Manchester related articles[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. The category for articles about Manchester is Category:Manchester. DexDor (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2013 (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/2013_August_7&oldid=1074810461"