Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17[edit]

Category:Private clubs[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/merge as nominated. I will however selectively merge any members that would otherwise be removed from Category:Clubs and societies altogether. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I was going to suggest an upmerge to Category:Clubs and societies, but most or all of the material seems to be in various subcategories there. What exactly is a private club? It is somewhat ambiguous and private club redirects to club. Do we really need to categorize a dinning club and a yacht club as private clubs? Is a private golf course really a private club? Better to delete and recreate something in the future, if needed, with fewer problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: shouldn't the sub-cat Category:Private clubs in the United States‎ and its several further sub-cats be considered with this one? – Fayenatic London 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Upmerge including "private clubs" to "clubs". A better way of organising this content would be by interest/purpose. The fact that a club is private or public is not very definitive or distinguishing from the rest of the material. SFB 13:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose A little googling for "private club" shows that people out in the Real World seem to think there is such a thing, so I'm not persuaded by our eight year old failure to write the article. I think there is something to be said for a reorganization along a better set of type categories, but indiscriminate upmerge doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable approach. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look in articles, almost all links to private club actually are hard coded to Gentlemen's club. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A longer comment. If you look at the articles not in more specific type categories, you will see some broad groupings. Like social clubs, country clubs and categories for specific types should really be used in my opinion. Yes, private is used to describe clubs. But what exactly does that mean? For the articles I looked at, it can mean: some kind of affiliation, a group you pay to join, a group that invites you in, a group that controls its membership, a group that limits its membership and maintains waiting lists, a club that only admits residents from a specific area, resident only clubs and so on. So using private here, leaves us with an ambiguous definition and subjective inclusion criteria. By up merging, we get everything into a small set of categories to make it easier to see what categories are needed like the existing Category:Dining clubs‎, Category:Yacht clubs‎‎ and Category:Traditional gentlemen's clubs‎ (which includes a large number of yacht clubs). I'd probably start with Social clubs since a large number fit there. But in the end, classification by private probably is not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2014 (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:Fictional bartenders[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. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: being more inclusive is better then creating more categories. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, what articles are driving this change? Bartenders and sommeliers tend to operate in quite different ways. Sommeliers seems better placed in a restaurant-based category on rather than this one, at first glance. SFB 13:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many fictional sommeliers you got? If it's at least 5, I would favor a separate category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose instead, just create a new category for sommeliers. In many ways, fictional bartenders have more in common with fictional barbers than fictional sommeliers, because of the way fictional barbers and bartenders are used for exposition through the common practice of spilling your guts out to your bartender or barber -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure what the common thread is beyond serving alcoholic beverages, nor does it match the real world people in Category:Bartenders and Category:Sommeliers. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2014 (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:Muslim communities by continent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent "by continent" was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 5#Category:Muslim communities by continent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 5#Category:Muslim communities by continent, but although these categories for each continent were tagged, they were not listed for deletion. I am making this as a procedural listing, without expressing a view either way. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior result - per continent is not a good way to organize ethnic/community articles. Unless someone can show that Muslim communities in Continent A differ from those in Continent B, but I doubt it, given that general Muslim view that one's religion and one's geographic location are not related (see Ummah vs. Sha'ab). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The purpose of categories is to help readers navigate to articles and these categories serve that purpose. Certainly, there can no argument that these groups are somehow not important and not interesting subjects of study. Category:Muslim communities in Africa has 11 subcategories and 61 direct articles. Many of these groups are transnational, having existed long before the current African states. Without this category, there is nothing in WP to connect these groups together as being located in Africa. Same with Category:Muslim communities in Asia with its 7 subcats and 6 direct articles. Category:Muslim communities in Europe has 2 subcats and 171 direct articles--but this category needs cleanup as it has many national articles that don't belong here and are very arguably not communities such as are found in the Africa category. Cleanup requirements do not equal deletion. Neither do arguments about the tenants of Islam. These categories are about groups of people, not religious doctrine. Hmains (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the African category is largely about Muslim majority tribes. This contrasts with the by country categories where I am voting differently. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Hmains. 92.19.28.179 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relist desirable because I gave a wrong link to the previous CFD in the nomination, now corrected above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Muslim majority communities in X. Directly using ethnicity as a by-word for a religion is a terrible idea for categorisation as it moves all people into the category tree, including minority non-adherents.Using the "majority" qualifier better summarises what the definitive characteristic actually is. The current category poorly represents the religious reality for people like the Akan and Tuareg. SFB 13:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per SFB, but hyphenate the first two words i.e. Category:Muslim-majority communities in X. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note that there was no consensus over the related "country" categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_8#Category:Muslim_communities_by_country. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole tree engages in the false assumption that these ethnic groups members are "rightly" Muslims, and contributes to the marginalization and denial of standing in the group of those who convert to other religions or decide to become athiests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: What do you make of Fayenatic london's suggestion above? This avoids the problem of placing non-adherents in an adherent tree, but still allows us to address the religious nature of certain groups. A complete deletion would logically suggest the separation of ethno-linguistic groups from religion at the highest level. SFB 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to show how bad this sort of categrorization is, one of the groups included was the Akan the majority of whom are Christians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most of these. This category tree was being misused. It is now being used for tribes and other groupsm that are overwhelmingly Muslim. I accept JPL's point. I am less happy with the structure of the European category, but the problem is probably that Turkish and Arab immigrant groups in Europe need to be moved down to "Turkish immigrants in Europe" etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories are important, especially in light of recent events in Paris.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (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:Webb School alumni[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. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and to match the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2014 (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/2014_December_17&oldid=1074812633"