Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 25 July 27 >

July 26[edit]

All Stars Awards winners[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. This seems reasonable given the long track record of award categories. I see the nomination by FL as completing cleanup and this is not a repudiation of the close he did. However given the comments here, the old rename targets need to be reviewed and probably nominated for a review to see if they should be kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I closed this CfD which attracted very little interest, and settled on consistency with List of All Stars Awards winners (football). Looking at the sub-cats, two are broken out by county which I do not think is appropriate. As for "All Star Gaelic footballers" and "...hurlers", they (i) lack the plural (Stars), and (ii) seem to have the same scope as the parent, which is at least partly my fault for the way I closed the previous CfD. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all we do not generally categorize by winning awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all nn awards; aren't these folks notable before winning these awards? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 1 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:Randolph Township, New Jersey and category:Margate City, New Jersey[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 Margate. Randolph is a no consensus call. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: To be consistent with article title, which has the word "Township" in its name. The same goes for Margate "City". Tinton5 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Also, to chage Category:People from Randolph, New Jersey to Category:People from Randolph Township, New Jersey.[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:Original Fellows of the Royal Society[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: Closed. Nominated category not tagged and with no discussion, this is the best that can be done. No objection to renomination following a correct listing of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is "Founder Fellows" not "original Fellows" and there is already a correctly named category. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:22, 26 July 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:Foreign Members[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. Whether we need to have this type of categorization at this level should be a new nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Foreign Members" of what? And unless "Foreign Member" is a formal title in each of these, I'd recommend sentence-case capitalization for the subcats. Same issue with Category:Corresponding Members. BDD (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both. I have created C:Foreign Members following the shortened pattern of C:Corresponding Members. It's better to rename them as proposed - these full names are much propre. --Elkost (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think we need to categorize people by being "foreign" members at such a high level. This may work in the individual categories, but there is no reason to group these at a higher level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 27 July 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:People by organization that assassinated them[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: listify and delete. Also, recategorise in Category:Assassinated people by nationality and Category:Assassinated people by occupation, as the cases that I looked at are not otherwise categorised within Category:Assassinated people. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people by cause of death (illness, suicide, murder etc) etc is one thing, but categorizing them by which organization was responsible for their death goes a step too far (i.e. it's even less WP:DEFINING of the person). There may also be cases where which organization was responsible is disputed. These categories could be listified (e.g. to the articles about the organizations). Note: There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_25#Category:Assassinations_by_country_and_Category:Assassinated_people_by_nationality. Note: For any articles about assassinations (i.e. events) the organization responsible may be a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the user (was an IP account, now have a name) that offered the July 25th proposal. I have a lot of problems with assigning people to categories based on assumptions of who assassinated them. Sometimes, terrorist organizations take credit for murders they haven't committed and other times, the evidence of who is responsible for assassination is mere assumption based on circumstance or there can be a difference of opinion among political analysts. I think this can even be true when the category is "assassinated by country" as that implies a state-sanctioned assassination and acts like that are rarely confirmed.
I think it is valid to have categories of "assassinated people/occupation categories" or "assassinated in country" but attribution of responsibility can be difficult to verify.
The only exceptions I can think of are acts during wartime (including civil wars), acts occurring during an internal purge of a government, or acts committed through covert espionage that is later confirmed in secondary sources. But just because a media analyst on a network news channel claims a particular government or organization is responsible for a murder should never be taken as proof. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we have a whole 'people executed by x' tree for judicial executions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a sample Category, OWK, so I can track that down? I did a category search for "assassinated by" and posted some examples I found on the related proposal from July 25th. 69.125.134.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, moving people to appropriate by nationality categories if not already there. Issues with disuputes on who was responsible can be covered in a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We have a whole well-filled out Category:Executions_by_country tree. Look at all the categories this poor fellow is in: William_Walker_(filibuster). As such, assassinations by state actors, and non-state actors, could be a category tree as well, if someone wants to build it out. Given the existence of the executions tree, an assassinations tree (e.g. People assassinated by the US Government) would be reasonable. I don't agree with Newjerseyliz' assertion that sourcing is difficult - we simply need to go by the preponderance of reliable sources. If there is dispute as to whom assassinated X, then we simply don't put them in the category, but in some cases the historical record is clear - for example, cases like Abu_Ali_Mustafa , [1]. etc. I'm not sure why we trust news sources in so many other cases, but not this one. Yes, they may get it wrong, but that's not for us to judge. If there is debate, leave the category out, but if there is no debate, it could stay. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have both "People executed by <country>" and "People executed in <country>" categories. If we delete the by-organization categories we can still categorize someone as a "Fooian fooer assassinated in Fooia". IMO it's WP:OVERCAT to also categorize by assassinating organization; that the organization may be disputed is not the main reason for this CFD. DexDor (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with you, DexDor, I thought this CFD was all about whether people should be categorized by organization/state that purportedly was responsible for their assassination. It's right in your rationale, often responsibility for a murder is ambiguous or falsely assigned. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I proposed this category for deletion is that categorizing a person by assassinating organization is going (IMO, at least) a step too far from what's really a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (i.e. the first sentence of the nomination). I also mentioned another difficulty with this categorization. I should have made that clearer as experience at CFD shows that people often ignore the main rationale and try to pick holes in anything else mentioned in the nomination (hence why so many of my CFD nominations contain "For info"). DexDor (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about "alleged" perps - this is about assassinations (which are almost always inherently notable, as an assassination is a targeted killing of a political leader.) In addition, we have a whole executions by country tree, which covers cases where prisoners are executed by a state actor. Thus, classifying assassinations by state actors and by non-state actors is perfectly reasonable within the existing scope of categorization - though only if there are clear RS attributing the assassination to entity X, and only if entity X itself is notable and has a number of assassinations attributed to them. It would be reasonable to consider only classifying articles about assassinations, vs just people, but we don't have many of those, so ultimately people may end up in this category.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@OWK. Please read the nomination. This CFD is specifically _not_ about assassination articles (example) - it's about assassinated people articles (i.e. bio articles that are often already in dozens of categories such as "Alumni of..."). DexDor (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, assassination victims do not need to be "political leaders" per se. In studying 1909 assasinations I cam across mentions of a sherrif assassinated in that year who we did not have an article on. Assasinations are more targeted killings, the victims does not need to be a "leader" and they clearly could be a religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Killing a candidate for office, no matter what their chance of winning, is generally considered an assassination, at least if it was not done by a jilted lover or an enraged spouse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete->Listify - Useful information (especially the JVP/LTTE) but I agree categorization smacks a bit of overkill. Open to changing either way based on the arguments other people present.Pectoretalk 03:33, 9 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:Russian people of World War II[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: not merged. Whether these should, as a whole, use "Russian" instead of "Soviet" is a box to be opened another time. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain the same subjects. Usually when they say that someone "fought the WWII" they mean military and vice verse. In Russian Wikipedia this category means literally "People of Great Patriotic War (term)". 217.21.43.22 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 15:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - putting Category:Auschwitz concentration camp victims from Russia under a "military personnel" category isn't right. There might be other changes that could be made with these categories. P.S. Neither category under discussion has been tagged. DexDor (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Category:Auschwitz concentration camp victims from Russia contains only one article. Is it a category after all? -- 217.21.43.22 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change a reading of the content of the two categories shows they contain completely different content. And this the English WP, not the Russian one; we are not concerned with Russian language terminology/meanings. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Russian people" does not equal "Soviet military personnel". The latter category does not include either civilians or partisan fighters.
But we might consider changing "Russian people of World War II" to a parent category "Soviet people of World War II" with "Soviet military personnel of World War II" as a child category. Not all Soviets were Russian and if there is a "Russian people of World War II", there should also be "Georgian people", "Ukrainian people", "Belarus people", etc. Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to merge both Category:Russian people of World War II and Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II to Category:Soviet people of World War II? -- 217.21.43.22 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to open the Pandora's Box of ethnic identity? (See Republics of the Soviet Union). Americans might have used "Russian" when they meant "Soviet Union" but I can guarantee that Soviets who were not Russian were quite aware of the fact they were of a different ethnicity. In 1990, only 50.78% of Soviets were Russian. [1] Just because people in the U.S. didn't make distinctions doesn't mean that they didn't exist. For example, you have different partisan fighters in different Soviet Republics and so you have Category:Ukrainian people of World War II, Category:Belarusian people of World War II or Category:People of World War II from Georgia (country).
Another issue is that Category:Russian people of World War II is a subcategory of Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II and Category:People of World War II by nationality.
The confusion is that you have a) Nationality, b) Republic and c) Ethnicity. USSR is the nation, Russia is the Republic as well as the Ethnicity. Just like someone might be an Irish American living in CA. There are lots of Irish Americans and California is the most populous state. But not all Americans are Irish and not all Americans live in CA.
I plead with you, look at how ethnic and citizenship categories for the Soviet Union have already been handled on other issues. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Central Intelligence Agency (1991). "Soviet Union – People". The World Factbook. Retrieved 25 October 2010.
No, I definitely don't want to open Pandora's box. Otherwise it will kill Wikipedia. I just want to make one-to-one correspondent categories in Russian and English wikipedias. Firstly to determine which persons (military/nonmilitary) should be included. Secondly, if we can distinguish Russian/Soviet, then choose something more general or more neutral. Does it make any sense to have a separate category to include nonmilitary who lived during this or that war? If we can't compromise I'll try to change the categories in Russian Wikipedia, if it will be possible. 217.21.43.22 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there shouldn't be "Russian people of WWII" any more than there should be "Welsh people of WWII"; the former are subsumed by the USSR, the latter by the UK. We don't need WWII people in various uniforms also subdivided by their ethnicities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Russia was only one of the constituent republics of USSR, even though much the largest. Not all people are military personnel. However, I would question whether splitting people by whether they were alive during a particular period of about 4 years is sensible. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 4 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:Kenyan football transfer 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: Kenyan Premier League is not a notable league, so it's no need to create transfers articles as well as their category and navbox. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 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:Lists of college bowl 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is misleading because it implies that it should be used for articles pertaining to lists of bowl games in general. The proposed title would clearly indicate that it is for articles of teams' bowl games. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 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:Town Managers of Saugus, Massachusetts[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The convention for naming such people is from Foo not of Foo. Article creator has done it this way because he says the town charter doesn't require a person to be from Saugus to be Town Manager. I'm bringing the dispute here in a good faith effort to resolve it. If the category is renamed as I proposed, I feel it should be made a subcategory of 'People from Saugus, Massachusetts'. ...William 12:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Proposed name is factually incorrect and confusing. A town manager can be from Saugus, but not be town manager of Saugus (i.e. the town manager of Swampscott can be a Town Manager from Saugus, Massachusetts, but is not the Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts) and vice versa. The current category categorizes people by occupation, which is standard, while the proposed one categorizes by occupation and hometown, which is too specific. It would be like having a category for Category:Governors of Massachusetts from Boston or Category:United States Senators from Muncie, Indiana. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change Change is obviously wrong on it face, as just described above. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – category is for "Town Managers of Saugus", who may or may not be 'from Saugus' (like Category:Lord Mayors of London who may or may not be from London). Oculi (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a by office, not a by place category. We do not put people from Saugus who were town managers elsewhere in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 27 July 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:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami relief[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used to tag articles about ships, organizations, airports for which involvement with relief after the earthquake/tsunami is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. There are a couple of articles to be upmerged (Operation Tomodachi, Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami). The parent category (2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami) should also be purged. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A little work, like reading the articles, and editing (removing this category when not appropriate) leaves a proper collection of articles for this category. Hmains (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I hadn't realised there were all those musical albums for which this disaster is a defining characteristic - CFD withdrawn. DexDor (talk) 02:35, 28 July 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_July_26&oldid=1074811101"