Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4[edit]

Category:German Jews who immigrated to the United States to escape Nazism[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:Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was speedily renamed against consensus. No longer matches normal English usage. No longer matches parent category or surrounding categories. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative. Perhaps, slightly shorter, replace 'Jews who emigrated' by 'Jewish emigrants'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative The alternative is acceptable to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose against this upmerge, as this alternative would drop the Jewish ethnicity, while being Jewish was actually highly defining in this particular context. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about people who emigrated from Germany because of other things (such as being a Communist) or where the decision to emigrate (and especially to choose the US) may have been influenced by other things (e.g. job opportunities)? DexDor (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue that from 1937 to 1945, those leaving what is now Austria should be in the German category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per JPL or delete per WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: What's your opinion about the alt rename by SFB? To me it seems that DNWAUC would not so much apply to this alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted/upmerged then rename as proposed by SFB. I still think that categorizing people by how they relocated in search of better life chances is DNWAUC (e.g. "People who moved from the Midwest to California during the Great Depression"). We should stick to categorizing people by (1) what they are notable for and (2) standard biographical characteristics. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - I think it's too specific of a category that, as DexDor said, is telling a story rather than categorizing. While it's certainly of note for a biography, it's too much detail to include motives in a category. I don't think there are other categories like that ("Vietnamese Immigrants Who Moved to Australia to Escape the Vietnam War," "People Who Became Comedians because They Loved Richard Pryor," "People Who Moved to Florida Because There Is No Income Tax" etc). When a category has no parallel, it's probably because it's too specific. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wikimandia: What about SFB's alternative? It only contains ethnicity (which is very defining in this case), but doesn't contain a motive. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is currently the only emigration + ethnicity category. We categorize emigrants by the nation they leave and the one they go to, not by ethnicity. Beyond this, it is technically a racial category. How would we treat someone who considered themselves to be ethnically German, but who fled Germany because the Nazis had decided they were racially Jewish. The Nazis defined Jewishness as a race, not an ethnicity. The difference is at times hard to tell, but there is one. Lastly, all these people will be in multiple other Jewish categories, such as one for American Jews and one for German Jews as well as possibly others, if they defined themselves as Jewish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 May 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:Housing problems[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 13:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Not a very helpful category. Who decides what constitutes a problem?. Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 4 April 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:Mythology-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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The idea is then to please move the result to a unified content as: Category:Religion and mythology related lists. The aim is to bring some order and consistency in the topic. The main cat, recently created, is Category:Religion and mythology which is rightly presented as saying that religion and mythology have different but overlapping aspects. At present Wikipedia either has WP:SYSTEMICBIAS or an unnecessary anomaly as it tends to class modern day faiths as religions and past time faiths as myths. In essence the two spheres diffuse with each other and I don't think that it is down to Wikipedia to decide which goes where. We should just present content and let the reader decide. There will be several other moves to make of this type GregKaye 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, as well as strongly oppose to having Category:Religion and mythology as a parent category for Category:Religion. Religion overlaps with so many different fields, like history, politics, society, and in Wikipedia we have classified these overlaps in a child category of the two, e.g. Category:Religion and politics is parented to Category:Religion and to Category:Politics. The same should happen with religion and mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle The overlap between religion and mythology, as the fields are defined, is profound even from the starting point of "creation stories" commonly being described as Creation myths. If description is to be made of religious topics as mythological then the same should apply to all. We even, very notably within Wikipedia circles, make presentations such as Mercury (mythology). This is just one example of a religious figure that has been presented purely in terms of mythology for years and yet no objections have been raised on behalf of an ancient divinity.
A search on "Roman religion and mythology" OR "Roman mythology and religion" shows that these subject are commonly and sensibly considered in concert. I personally think think that terms like mythology should be words to watch but, if they are to be applied, this should happen evenly. "Religion and Politics" are regularly two different things and the comparison does not work. Religion and mythology are considered to be profoundly intermeshed. GregKaye 07:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with the intersection between mythology and religion and I am perfectly okay to categorize Creation myths in a category like that. I do have a problem with upside down categorization though, as there's so many more aspects to religion than mythology and ultimately I'd expect maybe 1% of the religion articles to fall in the intersection with mythology. It's like you propose to merge United Kingdom and United States based on their common language. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - next we'll be adding legend, fairy tale, and folk tale. No. Overlapping topics exist all over Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we should combine them into a single category. - jc37 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Myth and religion overlap but are not the same. I really wish GregKaye would stop creating discussions about this on so many different pages; he is not understanding other editors' objections to his arguments, and it is difficult to keep track of all the changes he's trying to make. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Mythology is not a subset of religion. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 9 April 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.

Medieval physicians[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. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Medieval physicians.

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, all these categories contain only 1, 2 of 3 articles. No need to upmerge to Category:Medieval physicians because I've made sure that all of them are in an Xth-century physicians category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This will get us into directly categorizing people of Medieval times under categories meant for the nationals of modern nations. This will muddy our categorization. This will miscategorize many. Some miscategorization happens when categories are linked mother to daughter, but this direct linking is not a wise idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: That may be the case, but there's no way to tell that these will ever be on English Wikipedia (unless you commit to taking care of it). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 20 April 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:Health disparities[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. – Fayenatic London 07:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with few articles. Disparities can happily be included in determinants. Now a commoner approach to these topics. Disparities rather implies that these things arise at random and nothing can be done about them. Determinants implies causation. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 4 April 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:History of the Czech Republic[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: do not rename. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. It was initially nominated for speedy as C2E but opposed. In the current setup, Category:Czech history has a child Category:History of the Czech Republic by period which covers the Moravian, Bohemian, Czechoslovak and Czech Republic periods all together. The nominated category is a child of the latter and is intended only for the recent Czech Republic. The rename was opposed because the Czech Republic is by definition since 1993. But, it's very strange to have Category:Czech Republic as a child of Category:History of the Czech Republic by period, while after renaming it would not at all be strange to have Category:History of the Czech Republic (1993–) as a child of Category:History of the Czech Republic by period.
Essentially the rename is proposed because of the ambiguity of the catchphrase History of the Czech Republic, it may mean the entire history, it may also mean only the very recent history. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's moot. Per Wikipedia:Category_names#Miscellaneous_.22of_country.22, "for "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". Category:History of the Czech Republic looks to be designed specifically for the Czech Republic (as opposed to Category:History of Czechoslovakia, etc). To sort the remaining mess I propose renaming of some subcats in Category:History of the Czech Republic by period, using the words "Czech lands" instead of "Czech Republic". Brandmeistertalk 20:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural remark. Personally I'm neutral towards the alternative or renaming a lot of other subcats because in the end it would serve the same purpose (avoiding ambiguity). But the alternative does require a separate nomination because it concerns different categories than nominated here. @Brandmeister: Are you willing to take the lead in that? If it turns out that the alternative gets consensus I will withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Czech Republic" most clearly refers to the Czech Republic. This isn't a useful change and only confuses readers with the tantalising prospect of some "pre-1993 Czech Republic" which, as far as I can see, did not exist. SFB 12:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is sufficient for the date to appear in the head note. I beleive that before 1993, there were three polities within Czechosovakia: Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia, of which the first two became the Czech Republic. Accordingly, we should not get a category for "Czech Republic (xx--1993)". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had not noticed that this full CfD was under way when I processed a Speedy rename from Category:Czech history to Category:History of the Czech lands. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restructure to have this as the parent and "History of the Czech lands" as the pre-Republic sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understood correctly, Brandmeister has in mind to have "History of the Czech lands" as the parent and to keep "History of the Czech Republic" as the 1993+ history, while Fayenatic has in mind to have "History of the Czech Republic" as the parent and to turn "History of the Czech lands" into a -1993 history. I have a (weak) preference for Brandmeister's thought as it seems to me that the Czech Republic only exists since 1993, while Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) and Bohemia (before 1918) were different countries. Anyway it seems that Brandmeister and Fayenatic london should also directly comment on each other's thoughts. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 6 April 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:Moravian noble families[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. MER-C 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to match actual content, the category mostly contains individuals instead of families. Note: there is currently a redirect from Category:Moravian nobility to Category:Moravian noble families. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 4 April 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:Czech Austro-Hungarians[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. – Fayenatic London 15:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, hardly any people in this tree are characterized as 'Czech Austro-Hungarians'. Most people in this tree are simply 'Czech' people and are already happily categorized as Category:19th-century Czech people and/or Category:20th-century Czech people. Incidentally there are also 'Austrian' or 'Austro-Hungarian' people who are e.g. in Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything that suggests people ever identified as Czech Austro-Hungarian. The Czech and Austro-Hungarian trees do the job well enough separately. For me this construction makes as much sense as someone being classified as Scottish British. SFB 12:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorise all then delete -- Linguistically, the Czechs, the Austrians, and the Hungarians were separate peoples. "People of the Austro-Hungarian Empire" might make a useful container-only category, but people should be categoised according to actual ethnicity or nationality. Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, Austria, etc were all constituent parts of an empire with a single ruler, but different titles for his rulership of his vartious realms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless imposition of later ethnogroupings using later-devised naming on people we cannot prove what ethnicity they thought they were much less what they really were (possibility of illegitimate births negating anything but a pure female ancestry to prove any point being asserted). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We categorize people by the realm they were nationals of (in this case Austria-Hungary) plus their ethnicity. That is what this category is doing, it is a standard and acceptable way to categorize people. If we categorized primarily on linguistic issues than Category:Indian people would not categorize people but only [[:Category:Gujarati people}] etc. So I think Peterkingirons argument does not stand up to scrutiny of how we actually categorize people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is part of the larger tree Category:Austro-Hungarian people by ethnic or national origin. No one has explained why this category should be eliminated but not its sister categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to nominate others if consensus grows about this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While in earlier times the unity of the domains in question was not clear, in the 19th-century the Austrian Empire was clearly a unified political area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 17 May 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:Number-one singles in Iceland[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 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Articles related to charting in Iceland have been deleted (e.g. Tonlist, List of number-one singles (Iceland)) and there's no mention of the chart or its significance in any other articles (outside of chart performance sections), so the accomplishment of reaching number one in Iceland could hardly be called defining to such songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if the chart isn't notable, then being a #1 on it isn't worth noting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, the problem with Tonlist wasn't that charting in Iceland is inherently less notable in principle than charting in any other country — it's that Tonlist is a single-vendor chart (and thus not necessarily representative of what's selling at other music retailers, or of factors like radio airplay) rather than a true IFPI-certified national chart. Not being familiar with Iceland, I don't know if there's another more appropriate chart that this category could be repurposed to cover — if there is, then this would be allowed to exist. Delete per nom, without prejudice against recreation in the future if there's a proper Icelandic pop chart that can be used in Tonlist's place. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 7 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_4&oldid=1138408302"