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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This only holds a container sub-category by occupation, and is therefore an unnecessary layer. The sub-cat is suitably parented. – FayenaticLondon 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's rationale. Onel5969TT me 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am relying on the views of others that we do not need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 15 November 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:Archived files for deletion discussions[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.
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, given how a page is put into this category. A page is put into this category when {{Ffd top}} or {{Puf top}} is transcluded or substituted; what this means is that since WP:FFD has discussions listed on daily subpages, this category puts the entire daily subpage into the category, not just the discussion for the file. At this point, this category includes essentially every WP:FFD daily subpage since April 2007 (and WP:PUF since July 2007), making it difficult to understand how or why this is helpful or accurate. Also, renaming this category to something along the lines of "FFD daily subpages" wouldn't seem to resolve this issue either since the page archives are accessible through Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Log (and WP:PUF through Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Archive.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Standardised and clearer naming. – FayenaticLondon 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, these categories contain articles about people, not articles about occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom and Marcocapelle. Daicaregos (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mostly, with a question. What practical difference would there be between Category:People by language and occupation and Category:People by occupation and language? The current categories do serve clearly different purposes, and I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost if given these ambiguous names. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 10:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: My point is that the pair of names is ambiguous and imprecise, and that those who are unfamiliar with that seemingly-unwritten convention may easily be confused. I reiterate that I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost with this system. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this convention is widely used in Wikipedia categories that analyse things two ways. If I was starting from scratch I'd probably try something longer but more specific, e.g. "People by occupation within nationality" or "People by nationality and then by occupation", but we may as well stick to the convention. If an editor clicks down into the one he didn't want, it's only one more click to go across to the other.
Interesting. The 2006 CfD discussion seemed to only attain that result because there simply wasn't a desire to examine the alternate proposals objectively, with frequent dismissals as "meh, nom says the same thing". I've watched your new discussion, but I don't think I can add much there that I haven't said here. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's rationale. Onel5969TT me 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do they speak the language, or do they only read-and-write the language? What do we do with the ones that are literate but not verbally conversant? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought of that but could not come up with a better name. WP:SUBCAT does permit parenting in such cases where there could be a few exceptions. Oh, I see someone changed that in June;[1] I will revert that and start a discussion on that too. – FayenaticLondon 09:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no such thing as a "x-language occupation" and this will make it much clearer. I do believe that, in this context, "speaking" a language is generally accepted as a synonym for "being fluent" in a language. Obviously, there can be nuances of meaning, but that is true of almost every word in the English language. Deb (talk) 14:32, 16 November 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Each of these should be a container category like Category:Welsh-language occupations, but there are no language-related sub-cats. In each case the only sub-cat is properly parented without needing this one. – FayenaticLondon 19:55, 13 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Pretty sure this violates our WP:POV policy, since it uses a WP:PEACOCK term in its title. Prestigious is a subjective term. Onel5969TT me 19:32, 13 November 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:People associated with the Whitewater controversy[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.
What's convenient here, is that these categories literally start with "People associated with..." and we have an over-categorization guideline discouraging People associated with categories. Specifically, WP:OCASSOC reads that "the problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of 'association; is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category." Not only that, but these are generally living people being "associated" with a controversy so there are WP:BLPCAT issues. If you need to put a disclaimer at the top of the category saying "Inclusion in the category does not necessarily imply wrongdoing" to avoid libel issues, you're already over the edge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "associated with" categories are almost always a bad idea, and this doesn't stand out as an exception. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 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.
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. The broader complaints here carry little weight as an article titled "... controversy" is objectively categorised under "controversies" – not that this is a necessary requirement for categorising there. Disputes over categorising particular pages normally belong on each article's talk page. – FayenaticLondon 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word controversy is loaded and subjective. It's use is questionable in articles with context (WP:CSECTION), but as a category it's a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP mess. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category - not only is it a POV and BLP issue to attempt to group together all the controversies around a single current political candidate, it is unnecessary (the broader category can include all things, controversies or not), a COATRACK issue as originally created (it listed everything negative that involved her, not things sourced as controversies), and a meaninglessly small category of only several articles once the impertinent ones were removed. I really don't think Wikipedia wants to be a place where negative information about living people is grouped together into their own categories like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added some parent categories and, while I was doing that, another editor was purging some of the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – distasteful intrusion of current US politics into wikipedia. Oculi (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversies are real. And we have articles names as such. Reasonable subcategory. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the case it is decided to be deleted, in fact it should be upmerged. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's "controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, hence subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staszek Lem. A controversy is not necessarily subjective, it's meant to be an objective indicator that people have different judgments about it. (If not kept, then upmerge.) Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With that logic, everything becomes a controversy - as objectively people have different judgments about virtually everything, striking the word "virtually" when we enter the political world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly Shifting Articles in this Category I don't think we're all voting on the same category here since four different editors are actively adding and removing articles. @Jwkenn01, Professor JR, Wikidemon, and 70.215.89.172: There is an active discussion of this category, please hold off on further edits until it closes. And, as long as you're here, we'd love to hear your opinions on this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Once we've gotten it down to a small and stable number, the remaining entries can be put in the Hillary Clinton category. pbp 13:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)⊄[reply]
Delete A controversy category for a politician in election year is not encyclopedic—it's a campaign statement to accumulate opinions from opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple articles that adequately go in this category. This clearly should not be deleted, at a minimum the contents should be upmerged to Category:Hillary Clinton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 5 December 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.
