Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13[edit]

Category:Userspace RFC drafts[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. — ξxplicit 04:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct was marked as closed after this discussion, and therefore this category isn't needed anymore. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep The category currently contains various proposals. Please recategorize or delete them (through WP:MfD) first. As the process this is for is now defunct, we should examine the in-progress proposals for user review and contact the authors, or see what current process should take in the requests under preparation. I think it would be better to have a category around to keep track of the matter, until it's all said and done. Then when it is empty, it can be speedily deleted. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Please recategorize or delete them ... first." - that would apply to articles (or pages in another namespace where every page should be categorized), but user (sub)pages do not need to be categorized. Those I checked are drafts from several years ago so it's unlikely that anybody else would want to examine them and contact the authors (some of whom appear to have left Wp). DexDor (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is redundant wp infrastructure. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 21 October 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:Baloncesto Málaga basketball players[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: having the word "basketball" in the title is repetitive as "baloncesto" is basketball in Spanish. Rikster2 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name change per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 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.

Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub[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: procedural close. Wrong venue, and ultimately dealt with. — ξxplicit 04:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category I emptied four days ago, after the Moroccan region changed its name to Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab last month. The stubs are now in Category:Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab geography stubs. I propose deleting the template. Cobblet (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlossuarez46, see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Confused – I'm not a regular here and I'm getting conflicting advice on how to handle this. Cobblet (talk) 09:38, 16 October 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:Taylor Swift tribute 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: merge to parent categories. — ξxplicit 04:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parent cats: there is only one album in this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the parent category: Category:Tribute albums and you will see many other one album categories. What is the point of nominating only Taylor Swift's category for deletion? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect many of those categories were created because there was no eponymous category named after the artist/band. That is not the case here. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the subject of a tribute album is obviously a defining characteristic. There is the secondary benefit of organising Category:Tribute albums in a sensible fashion. (EG in Category:Tribute albums I cannot tell from Crazy Legs (album) that it is a Gene Vincent tribute album.) Oculi (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT. The category does not serve a navigation purpose with 1 article that the parent categories won't provide. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per RevelationDirect. It is notable that it is a tribute album, debatable whether being a Taylor Swift tribute album is notable especially as there is only the one! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 23 October 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.

Mandarin-language categories[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 renamed. This is teetering on the edge between "keep" and "no consensus" but either way after two months this is time to close with the "not renamed" result. Renaming the two odd-categories-out as suggested by @Fayenatic london: down at the end of the discussion can be done as a seperate (and fresh) nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I initially nominated the above categories for speedy renaming under C2C, in addition to C2D for Category:Mandarin songs, but the nomination was opposed with the following rationale: it seems a strange result to rename "Mandarin-language" categories to "Mandarin Chinese-language" while allowing "Cantonese-language" below. Although your proposals matches the names of the lead articles "Mandarin Chinese" and "Cantonese", "Mandarin Chinese" is disambiguation whereas "Mandarin-language" is already unambiguous.
For categories, we generally include disambiguation in the names regardless if it is otherwise clear the other topics with the same name—see Category:F(x) (band) and its subcategories, for example. That was the basis of my nomination. There are exceptions, like all the subcategories of Category:Singles (music), which don't have the qualifier.
I've opened up a full discussion for this purpose. In the case of consensus concluding that the current category names suffice, at the very least, Category:Mandarin songs should be renamed to Category:Mandarin-language songs and Category:Mandarin Chinese-language albums—which was not originally part of the speedy nomination since that category already fell in line—should be renamed to Category:Mandarin-language albums. — ξxplicit 04:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I actually hadn't nominated Category:Mandarin-language singers of China for speedy renaming because I was waiting for the others to get renamed. This category should be merged to whatever the outcome is for Category:Mandarin-language singers under the same basis of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9#Category:Korean-language singers of South Korea. — ξxplicit 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Mandarin-language" as more concise and sufficiently unambiguous. @Explicit: thanks for making this a full nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london. I think we should distinguish between the situation that a category is literally named after an article, like in Category:F(x) (band) and in Category:Mandarin Chinese versus a derived category name as in the nominated categories here. In the latter case we have a little more freedom in naming, we suffer a little less from ambiguity (because the derivation provides additional context) and we have a little more need to shorten the category name (because the derivation makes the name longer). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's unwise, in my opinion, to start creating situations in category names where we can choose to change a name as compared to how it appears in article-space. Such situations will only lead to confusion, and we should not presume a level of background knowledge such that readers will be able to "figure it out". Sorry, but many people are dumber than you think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've never heard of "Mandarin Chinese-language". It's either "Mandarin Chinese" or "Mandarin-language". Timmyshin (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Timmyshin. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note that I did not merely oppose the nomination as stated, but made an alternative proposal: keep most, but rename Category:Mandarin songs to Category:Mandarin-language songs, and Category:Mandarin Chinese-language albums to Category:Mandarin-language albums. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 14 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.

Category:Piano rock 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The notional genre of piano rock was deleted twice, the second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (2nd nomination). If there is no genre then there should be no category. Similar categories to be deleted include Category:Piano rock video albums, Category:Live piano rock albums, and Category:Piano rock EPs. Note that the category of piano rock songs was deleted in April 2014 at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_8#Category:Piano_rock_songs. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with caveat Evidently, this was emptied before the discussion which is out of process. That having been said, if there is not article on the genre, then delete the category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 13 October 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:Anti-imperialist organizations in Europe[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Category:Anti-imperialist political parties
Category:Anti-imperialist political parties in Europe
Category:Anti-imperialist organizations in Africa
Category:Anti-imperialist political parties in Africa
Category:Anti-imperialist organizations in North America
Category:Anti-imperialist political parties in North America
Category:Anti-imperialist organizations in Asia
Category:Anti-imperialist political parties in Asia

  • keep no reasoning advanced for deletion, list a list of label words is not an argument. Certainly a reasonable subset of its parent categories. Hmains (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The very term "anti-imperialist" is subjective, cultural, irredentist and unreliable. One man's imperialism is another's Manifest Destiny. "Anti-colonialism" is far more valid, less agitprop-ridden terminology, IMO, but that's not the point. Regarding European countries -- do you consider Denmark to be an imperialist nation (vis-a-vis Greenland)? Do you consider Spain to be imperialist now (vis-a-vis Ceuta and Melilla, not to even to mention older conflicts in Valencia, the Basque Region and Catalonia)? They get a free pass because they have no organised domestic (violent) dissidents at least regarding the territories in question, I guess.That's why We must be vigilant not to allow categories to be worded in such a way that introduces subjectivity or selectivity, because categories -- unlike articles, which are subject to editors' excesses and POV until caught and corrected -- are considered to be and must remain impartial, universal and reliable. Based on what I've seen these categories are being used for (if they were not designed for the purpose of) rehabilitating and respectabilising (how's that word!!) extremist factions and terrorist or terrorist-abetting groups (in Europe alone, those included in the categories CFDed here are the Official Irish Republican Army, Red Action (Croatia), Red Army Faction, Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik), and Republican Sinn Féin). No to even mention the other continents, about which I feel less comfortable discussing and will yield to those editors who are more informed. I had to include them all, however, for procedural reasons. BTW: How come there are/were no parallel categories created for South America? Just curious. Quis separabit? 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I created these categories because "anti-imperialism", agree with it or disagree with it, is a political cause/tendency with a name and groups who back the ideas. Often, "anti-imperialism" is a specific plank of a group or party's platform and sometimes "anti-imperialist" is part of the name for a party or organization. I created the categories to bring together groups and parties who endorse an "anti-imperialist" political outlook, for navigating purposes, not to endorse "anti-imperialism" as an ideology nor to endorse any particular political party or organization. My reward is getting accused of being a terrorism and extremism sympathizer. Yikes. Please assume good faith and try not to spout off outrageous claims about what I do or do not believe. As for South America, I believe I didn't get around to creating those categories yet, either because I didn't have the time or more likely because I couldn't find enough articles to create the categories. There's no secret or sinister reason I didn't create them, if that is what you are getting at (and you may not be).
As for whether or not Denmark or Spain are in fact "imperialist" countries, I don't really care in this context. I'm not here to judge that. Are there groups in Denmark and Spain that endorse an "anti-imperialist" ideology? If so, then those groups are ideologically "anti-imperialist" groups - regardless of whether or not Denmark and Spain are actually imperialist or not and regardless of how I feel about those countries and their politics. Categorizing by "anti-imperialist" ideology does not imply that the claims of the "anti-imperialist" groups in question are factually correct or that their actions are morally correct. If a group or party does not endorse the ideology of "anti-imperialism" and is thus incorrectly categorized as "anti-imperialist", then the category can be removed, but the categories themselves are fine. Bohemian Baltimore (talk)
Hi, @Bohemian Baltimore -- my reply above was to @Hmains regarding his comment. I actually never checked who created the categories, so I apologise for any oversight in that regard and do not assume bad faith on anyone's part, but my decision would have been the same. Yours. Quis separabit? 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Rms125a@hotmail.com, I appreciate the clarification/apology. Sorry if I got too defensive, I was just upset because I thought I was being accused of supporting things I find to be heinous. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Anti-imperialism article is sufficient to support this set of categories. We are not dealing with the personal opinion of any editor; we are dealing with facts, party positions, platforms, history and so on found in the WP articles. Categories have no 'position'; they are a means to help readers navigate to related articles--that is the sole purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to keep, at least until clearer rationale for deletion is provided. The fact that anti-imperialist organizations exist in some countries and not in others is not relevant for having these categories, nor is the fact relevant that also some terrorist organizations are anti-imperialist. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rhetorical question I posited ("How come there are/were no parallel categories created for South America?"), was just that, a question, with no bearing on the validity on these nominations for deletion. Further, and far more importantly, the point is that the term "anti-imperialism" is a subjective and selective self-description, often for public consumption only. I mean, for gosh sake, the Khmer Rouge, the Bolshevists, the successive Kim dictatorships in North Korea, have all called themselves "antiimperialist". It has become a catch-all phrase to some extent to justify violent political and societal activities in some parts of the world. Given that even less inflammatory terms such as "repression" and "victimology" have been deemed by consensus on Wikipedia to be subjective and non-encyclopaedic for the purposes of categorizations (please see [1], [2], [3], [4]), I see no difference with this terminology. I think @BrownHairedGirl would agree. Quis separabit? 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that repression and anti-imperialist are comparable in this respect. With repression there is a POV problem because the oppressor will probably disagree with the accusation of being an oppressor. With anti-imperialist that isn't such a problem, it is (in itself) a neutral term, both people supporting anti-imperalism and people who are against it may both accept that a certain group calls itself anti-imperialist. I fear if this category would be deleted, we can no longer categorize any group of people based on their convictions. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle -- the term "imperialist" is most certainly subject to NPOV and subjectivity. Most Americans don't consider themselves imperialists but the histories of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc. tell another story, which is not to let the Spanish off the hook regarding the latter two, but... And most British people and certainly Unionists in Northern Ireland don't consider themselves imperialists or to be the tools of a malign and destructive imperialism, but most Irish nationalists and certainly all Irish "republicans" claim and see the exact opposite. Quis separabit? 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a difference between calling oneself an imperialist versus acknowledging that someone else calls himself an anti-imperialist. That is the key difference with the other example, because acknowledging victimization (as a controversial fact) implies acknowledging the suppression (as an equally controversial fact), while in this case acknowledging that someone has expressed (as a fact) a self-stated conviction (as a belief) doesn't imply anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron seems to explain it better than I do, see the last lines of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator, as a hopelessly POV and subjective (see WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). There have been many parallels of similarly subjective categories of political terminology being deleted.
    Sure, there is such a thing as anti-imperialism. The problem is that it's actually a set of very broad contexts with some overlap, but huge differences. Marxist anti-imperialism has little in common with the American Anti-Imperialist League of 1898, and neither has much in common with Khomeinism.
    Each of these strands also lacks clear boundaries, and the debates about labels are not just theoretical, they are live. Within the UK, the Labour Party has at some times been notably anti-imperialist (e.g. when decolonising India), but at other times apparently imperialist (for example in supporting the Falklands War or the 2003 invasion of Iraq). Even the Marxist left can't agree about who is imperialist and who isn't -- there are long arguments about whether the USSR is anti imperialist or fits some definitions of imperialism. In a more mainstream setting, there's an argument over whether supporters of Scottish independence are anti-imperialist.
    In article text, these complex concepts can be discussed and explained with nuances, and contradictory views presented per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. However, categories offer a binary choice of inclusion or exclusion, without comment: either a page is in a category, or it isn't. There is no room for nuance or qualification or opposing viewpoints. Categories are great for some attributes which fit that binary model, but far too crude for complex and diverse ideological labels such as "anti-imperialist". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The grouping of Anti-Zionist here inherently involves a Point-of View pushing about what Zionism is. Better to group things by what they clearly oppose as opposed to what they ostensibly oppose. All the more so because anti-imperialism has been attributed to Mao, who created an imperialist regime in Tibet by many accounts, to the leaders of the Soviet Union who did the same in the Baltic States and Central Asia as well as the Caucuses, and we could go on and on. Some would example that modern Indonesia, and maybe even more so early-post Dutch rule Indonesia was really just a case of Dutch imperial rule being replaced by Javanese imperial rule, at least outside of Java itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On another note, the way the United States treated Utah Territory fit most definitions of imperialism, the rhetoric of the Peoples Party (Utah) fit most anti-imperialist calls, although it never progressed to the point of calling for violent actions intended to secure independence, partly because the goal of statehood was seen as a way to end imperialist oppression, so should that political party fit in this framework?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective and unclear. This is not even a close call, IMO. Neutralitytalk 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see no OR problem in this, not is it POV, since it is about a point of view (which is legitimate. The question is whether those categorised belong in the categories: if they do not, the category should be removed. If that empties a category, it can then be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Anti-imperialism is a significant political ideology. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, @Dimadick -- it is, as noted above, "a subjective and selective self-description, often for public consumption only", used by, among others, anarchists, fifth columnists, Iranian mullahs, the IRA, the FALN, the Khmer Rouge, the Bolshevists, the successive Kim dictatorships in North Korea, Robert Mugabe, Moammar Qaddafi, et al, as a catchall justification for anything they want to get away with doing. Quis separabit? 19:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think @Necrothesp?? Quis separabit? 06:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see any reason for these categories, which lump together organisations with widely differing ideologies. Indeed, highly POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above, and because these categories do not seem useful for navigation. Moreover, this is rarely WP:DEFINING. If other features e.g. communism or independence movements are considered anti-imperialist, well, there are specific categories for those defining characteristics already. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_13&oldid=1090392130"