Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Siam[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:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Thailand, and category (not article) redirect. -Splash - tk 23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This was listed as a speedy. I think I pulled it since I was going to object, and never listed it in the opposed section, but I could be wrong. In any case this should receive a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ships are sunk in the bodies of water as they were named when they were sunk. Most if not all documentation reflects that part of history. So this should not be merged, but simply parented to the current name of the body of water. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as duplicate, and then {{category redirect}}. Ships are sunk at a particular location, regardless of what that location is named at the time. There is no navigational benefit in splitting categories with the same geographical scope. If a ship's sinking predates the renaming, then the article can use the old name piped to the new one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as duplicate, but re-create as an article redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and category redirect. As BHG points out, we do not use the "body of water as it was named when the ship was sunk" practice, as that would lead to wasteful, unnecessary, and confusing duplication. As we do with sports teams and other cases, we use the current accepted name, with past names as redirects. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 31 January 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:Twenty One Pilots[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as too small for now (songs, albums, main article and template). It can be recreated later if we ever get more material such as a category for the bands' members, a discography and so on. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete*** too small and barely notable enough for their own pages. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The song and album subcats are sufficient for navigation at this point. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:57, 27 January 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:Archaeological Sites of Great Importance[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.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See also

cat  : Archaeological Sites of Exceptional Importance

These categories seem to be specific to Serbia, so should include (Serbia) in their title (as their main articles do), or "in Serbia" or some such. (otherwise they might be accidentally placed on places such as King Tut's Tomb)

Also since the categories are fairly small and very closely related, I might think of merging them Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 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:Pet amphibians[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: speedy delete. This is just housekeeping after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 29#Category:Pet_amphibians_.28etc.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A recent CFD concluded that species articles should be removed from these categories. Having removed species categories and also moved articles to more appropriate categories (e.g. Category:Amphibians in captivity) these 2 categories are now empty and hence can be deleted. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 22 January 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:Pet reptiles[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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A recent CFD concluded that these categories should not contain species articles (i.e. some members of a species having been used as pets is not a defining characteristic of the species). Having been cleared out per that CFD the reptiles category should be renamed to match Category:Cats as pets etc and the subcategories (which now each contain just one article) can be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 19:15, 22 January 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:White Hispanic[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#EGRS. It's not clear to me how an editor determines that a person belongs in this category, or even precisely what the category means. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inclusion in that category appears to be based either on WP:SYNTHESIS or personal opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:08 am, Today (UTC−7)
Keep:Determination is based on ancestry. Hence, Ricardo Montalban is of pure Spanish Ancestry (both of his parents were immigrants to Mexico from Spain).

Meaning of category: Hispanic is an ehtno-linguistic category. People of all races belong to it. However, this does not elide the fact that people are treated differently according to their ancestry/appearance. Hence, a White hispanic enjoys privileges that a Black Hispanic does not. Topicality: I might also note how this subject has emerged in the context of racial politics in the USA (cf the Trevon Martin case and the discussion regarding Zimmerman's possible status as a White Hispanic. User: Alcazar77

This is a US centric classification with a strongly US centric bias. Almost everybody in Spain would be considered "White Hispanic" and all Spanish bio articles thus categorized. Also most Cubans, Argentinians and other non central-American Spanish speakers. Mostly this is a US political classification and if it is to be used should be backed up with an explicit reference that says those exact words. Zimmerman seems to be the only person where this is an important distinction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost everybody in Spain would be considered "White Hispanic" and all Spanish bio articles thus categorized. Also most Cubans, Argentinians and other non central-American Spanish speakers." I don't see how this disqualifies the utility of the category. Hispanic, for example, is an even larger category, yet it is in WIKIPEDIA.White Hispanic, in comparison to Hispanic, is actually a smaller category.
"This is a US centric classification with a strongly US centric bias." the category has tremendous utility for Latin America, where White Hispanics enjoy a greater level of social prestige than Black and Amerind Hispanics (cf telenovelas, with their strongly White casts). User: Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The related article is White Hispanic and Latino Americans and that article is stated as being American centric. White Latin American covers non-US locations and does have the advantage of including Brazil where race is also an issue. Hispanic, does not of course, cover Brazil. This category, as named doesn't serve the purpose intended and is too subjective. What benefit would there be to classify someone such as Pope Francis as a White Hispanic? He would meet the inclusion criteria. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a further example of the usefulness of this category in a Latin American context, here are two articles that discuss the privilege that White Hispanics enjoy on Spanish Language tv: http://www.sandraguzman.com/2011/03/is-there-racism-in-telenovelas.html User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"What benefit would there be to classify someone such as Pope Francis as a White Hispanic? He would meet the inclusion criteria." It would indicate that he is a recipient of White Privilege, that he has not experienced the kinds of discrimination that Black and Amerind Hispanics face. User:Alcazar77
The pope, White Hispanic? Really? Bergoglio? Sívori? Please... --Coco Lacoste (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that Pope Francis has not experienced discrimination, it is because he has lived most of his life in Argentina. This category will become unreasonably large if adequately applied. Also, do people with Anglo-American fathers and Hispanic mothers, like George Bush III fit in this category, or do they need no identifiable non-white ancestry, in which case George Zimmerman, who clearly has African ancestry, does not fit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The related article is White Hispanic and Latino Americans and that article is stated as being American centric. White Latin American covers non-US locations and does have the advantage of including Brazil where race is also an issue. Hispanic, does not of course, cover Brazil. "That is an interesting suggestion. Perhaps White Latin American would be a more useful category label? Alcazar77
Delete: per Bbb23 and Geraldo Perez. Also, "Category:Latin American people of European descent" and "Category:People of indigenous peoples descent" cover that in a more neutral and accurate manner. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, "Category:Latin American people of European descent" and "Category:People of indigenous peoples descent" cover that in a more neutral and accurate manner." I'm not sure about that. Use of White conveys the sense of racial privilege that people like Borges enjoyed. User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete subjective, too easy for BLP violations, possibly an inherent violation of WP:BLPCAT. Doesn't even include the most notable use of the actual term "white hispanic" George Zimmerman (I'm tempted to say there is a pov motivation behind the creation of this cat). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't even include the most notable use of the actual term "white hispanic" George Zimmerman":the problem with using Zimmerman is that his "White Hispanic" status was debated at the time (cf his Afro-Peruvian ancestry). User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat my point. If the term is so controversial, we cant even apply it to people that have directly been called such by reliable sources, we certainly shouldn't be applying it to others on our own initiative. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I can't quite see how describing, say, Ricardo Montalban as a White Hispanic would be. In Montalban's case, his ancestry is entirely White (both parents being Spanish immigrants to Mexico). Alcazar77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcazar77 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the US Census categorizes all Americans by race (including White) and ethnicity (including Latino/Hispanic), and allows every combination (including multiple races), so "White Hispanic" exists in the US but no one carries little cards showing what race/ethnicity we are so how does one tell? that said, however, it's a race x ethnicity category that shows no reason to segregate people on this combination - which may have no relevance outside of the US. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, the only ethnic classification on the US census is Hispanic or non-Hispanic. I still think they should also allow Arab/Middle-Eastern ethnic classification as well, but they don't, which leads to misleading descriptions of the ethnic situation in Metro Detroit. By the definitions used by most Americans, including the government agents who work for the TSA, a much larger percentage of those in metro-Detroit are non-whites than the census recognizes as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I understand that this term has a perceived real-world meaning, but in practice attempting an objective definition for this category is fraught with danger. Example: a person has one black great-grandparent but "looks" white. Are they white? Who decides? – Wdchk (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this why we have an existing guideline that states "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not."? (As some other editors have noted.) – Wdchk (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such thing. Zimmerman is clearly a Hispanic, but the media wanted to make it a black versus white issue for ratings, so decided to call him a White Hispanic. Total nonsense. Dream Focus 15:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the U.S. Census form, people of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race, including white. Mexicans and other Latinos with partial Spanish (or other European) ancestry self-identify as both Mexican and White. pbp 17:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize by ethnicity, not by race, the very existence of this category goes against that directive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 24 January 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:Israeli engineer stubs[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. -Splash - tk 23:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undersized - scan only finds 12 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but 12 looks like like a good size for a stand alone category. Plus, there will be more in the future (and Israelis are known for their engineering).--Mishae (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not for a stub category - the minimum for that us 60. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The size of stub categories will always wax and wane. The 12 entries are more than enough to justify a category and there is ample evidence that the number of of new articles, including ones in stub status, will continue to be replenished as individual articles are expanded out of stub status. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do wax and wane, but a category with 12 stubs is unlikely to reach 60 in the near future. And keeping the tag means that if there ever are 60 stubs for this category, it can be created nand populated with 2 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An appropriate stub. The "must have 60 stubs or else!!" criterion fails WP:COMMONSENSE in many cases - this is one of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 2 February 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:British printmaker stubs[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. -Splash - tk 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to have national categories for printmaker stubs until the top category for them (Category:Printmaker stubs) exists and exceeds a full page. Propose making a {{printmaker-stub}} to be its main tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the category (and stub template) was created because of the very large number of British artist stubs. This is the English language Wikipedia, after all, and GB has got several centuries of printmaking history to draw upon, and very many editors with an intersst in British art history. By all means go ahead and create a Category:Printmaker stubs, but that shouldn't prevent editors sorting out stubs at national level, where the numbers of stubs are already too large to be manageable. Sionk (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't checked, but it seems quite likely that if you move all the relevant stubs to appropriate stub categories, then even without this one you should be able to get the parent category (Category:British artist stubs) below 200 (this would only require finding 21 stubs out of 220), and quite possibly below 150. The UK stub categories do tend to become big, but you can usually reduce their size using the England, Scotland and Wales subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The general consensus seems to be (based on my experience and understanding of Categories for discussion) that general desriptors, such as 'artists', are filtered into more specific categories. By all means find someone that wants to spend several months sorting through the worlds artist stubs, but it's not going to be me, I can tell you! Sionk (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have decided to go though the British artists, I'm telling you the way to do this. And the way to find stubs for a specific category tree is this tool - note that this link gives you the {{asbox}} template which can be found in all properly-formed stub tags. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the more generic stub-type is missing, the more specialized one is therefore unneeded. One would assume that people interested in Printmakers would work on these stubs, and not just Brits, otherwise they would work on any Brit article and not just Printmakers. Creating a supercategory would also work. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange assumptions. Why wouldn't someone interested in British art want to work on British art subjects? Sionk (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They would presumably have a UK-bio-stub or similar template as well. And the categoryintersection would solve selecting out printmakers; While we have no way to select printmaker stubs at all, except Brits, so no way for people to work on printmakers unless they only wanted to work on British ones. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category isn't much below the threshold, so I would only support renaming if the wider-named target was unlikely to attract many stubs. However, the nominator has provided no figures, so I suggest creating and populating Category:Printmaker stubs and seeing where that leaves us. -22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
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:Cycloalkene stubs[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A quick scan finds only 29 stubs - less than half of the required 60 for a stub category. Additionally, the category was proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2014/January#Category:Cycloalkene_stubs_.2F_.7B.7BCycloalkene-stub.7D.7D and rejected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that it was rejected (by me) after the required waiting time (6 days, IIRC). I suggest indeed to delete as having a too narrow scope (note, that some of the compounds in the scan are not a cycloalkene - Manganocene, Sclarene, SB-612,111 and many others in the list of 28), and reasonable application of this would result in a plethora of tags (Desaspidin is besides a cycloalkene also an enol, a diene, a phenol, a phenol ether, a ketone, a diene; the mentioned enol has both the (cyclo)alkene and an alcohol functionality, and is a tautomer of the already mentioned ketone, which makes the decision of stub-sorting there also ambiguous). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:03, 22 January 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:Shapeshifting[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 (i.e. do not merge). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear why there are two categories for what is essentially a fictional phenomenon. Articles in the parent cat are also about fictional/mythological stuff. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 15:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective; how much about shapeshifting must a work be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Characterizing mythology and folklore as fiction is inaccurate, and a very large portion of the membership (as well as several subcats) are either mythological or folkloric. Seyasirt (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some religions of native Americans and certain African tribes have shapeshifters in them, as a real thing. I read a bit in National Geographic years ago where the native people of this one area still believed in shapeshifters, blaming them for stealing pack animals and whatnot. If you took things from the Christian religion and put them in a fictional character, wouldn't that upset people? Same thing here. Dream Focus 15:47, 24 January 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:Holly Brook albums[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: RELISTED. To check that this is indeed not the situation identified in the nomination. -Splash - tk 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories, this one and Category:Skylar Grey albums exist for the same person. The main article is Skylar Grey. I don't see this as a Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam situation. If so, then the albums should be split accordingly and the two categories should not have identical content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:04, 22 January 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_January_22&oldid=1140391333"