Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Female archers by nationality[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the subcats of Category:Female archers are by-nationality, so this container is simply a pointless extra layer. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom, but without prejudice to changing it back should non nationality categories appear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there should be no prejudice to re-creating the category if it would diffentiate the nationality sub-categories from new non-nationality sub-categories. It would then serve a purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 22 December 2016 (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:Tiger Street Football 2014 participators[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Setting aside the error in the category name, this category would regroup participants in a minor, one-off, unsanctioned exhibition match. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:14, 20 December 2016 (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:Women in Red[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. — ξxplicit 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to fall in line with established naming conventions for Wikiprojects and to properly identify that this is a category intended for Wikipedians and not mainspace pages. VegaDark (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in Some Fashion To make clear it is a WikiProject category. (Open to other rename proposals if the group prefers as long as it starts with "WikiProject") RevelationDirect (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, looking at this category more closely, it appears to be a mess of user pages, Wikipedia space pages, and even mainspace pages. It appears that this is not actually intended as a page for Wikipedians, but for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red pages. So I think a more accurate rename would be Category:WikiProject Women in Red and depopulate of mainspace and userspace pages. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged Just noticed the WikiProject wasn't tagged so I threw up a notice there. As long as the category starts with "WikiProject" I'll defer to the members on what they want to call this and how they use it. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the proposed "WikiProject..." category and make it a hidden category - this certainly does not belong in mainspace to confound all of our readers, whether they are editors or not. Jane (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually WikiProject categories are visible but on appear on talk pages. (Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just offering background.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I've never really been sure why this category was created but the move seems sensible.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree we should avoid confusion and naming conventions help with that. I created the category Category:Women in Red after reviewing the naming convention of WP:Art+Feminism (Category:ArtAndFeminism) as we are both hybrid communities which function in project space, and with external organizations. A+F and WiR share similarities with WP:Wikipedia Asian Month (Category:Wikipedia Asian Month) and perhaps less so with {{cl|WikiProject foo}}. Victuallers is co-founder of WiR, so seeking his thoughts on the matter. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree we should avoid confusion and naming conventions help with that - putting Wikiproject in front is probably useful. I met a Wikipedia who said "What is Women in Red?" - (obviously (s)he is now on a long and quite painful mind redirection course) Victuallers (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2016 (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:Minsk cinemas[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, nominated category no longer exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member, and even that isn't guaranteed as I've CSD'd it since the subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable and the page's apparent effort to assert notability falls far short. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it is now eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#C1. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:16, 20 December 2016 (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:Chicago Stingers 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What form of over-categorisation does the nominator think applies here? Please expand the rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - we only have one article, so only need one category. Having separate categories for each league the team played in is overkill. GiantSnowman 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no need for two separate categories for the same club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Looking around, it seems common to keep separate categories for teams that have changed names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 21 December 2016 (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:Monterey Bay Jaguars 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What form of over-categorisation does the nominator think applies here? Please expand the rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - we only have one article, so only need one category. Having separate categories for each league the team played in is overkill. @BrownHairedGirl: the article is California Jaguars, Monterery Bay being a previous name. No need to have separate categories for each 'version' of the team name. GiantSnowman 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no need for two separate categories for the same club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2016 (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 by religion[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. — ξxplicit 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is probably gonna be big, but here we go..... religion is not a defining characteristic for the majority of article subjects on Wikipedia. In other words, not something they're prominently noted for. WP:Overcategorization says Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided, and that verifiability isn't the same as being defining. I'm aware that there are people whose religion is a key trait they are noted for, but that far more often isn't the case overall with biographies on this site. Even for those people where it is a prominent trait, any religious details can easily be described in article prose instead. This category and all of its subcategories should therefore be deleted when it much more often than not isn't defining. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CAT/R is the shortcut to the "Religion" section of a guideline called "Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality". Hang googles (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing to do with the fact that religion isn't a defining trait (and thus not worth categorizing under) for most biographies on Wikipedia. The guideline obviously would need revision, but no part of it suggests the categories are beneficial for inclusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's used to categorize clergy and members of religious organizations (e.g. politicians of religious political parties) and for them it's definitely defining. I would expect that religious people categories are mostly container categories (with subcats by occupation) but I haven't checked this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it's not defining for many, there are always going to be some substantial number of articles for which it will be defining: religious leaders, missionaries, monks and nuns, etc. So we would need the scheme for at least these articles. The solution to the problem is to regulate which articles about people are categorized by religion, not to eliminate the categorization scheme altogether. (Not that that such a "solution" is easily implemented in practice – so I'm sympathetic with the sense that perhaps a drastic remedy is needed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it's a subcat scheme for Category:People and is a container category for a host of subcats which will merely be set adrift by deletion. Deletion will have no effect whatever on the categorisation of a single article. Oculi (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a stupid nom. It is a well populated container category. In some cases religion will be a NN characteristic of a person (who should thus not be in any religion subcategory), but for bishops, missionaries, etc, etc, religion is obviously defining. Furthermore, politicians will be influenced by their religious beliefs, as well as those of their political party. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a "stupid nom" at all. As I mentioned above, I'm aware that there are people whose religion is a key trait they are noted for, but that far more often isn't the case overall with biographies on this site. Even for those people where it is a prominent trait, any religious details can easily be described in article prose instead. The category and subcategories really are more of a net negative when it overall isn't a prominent trait for article subjects. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, the question is not "should this category exist?" but rather "should this article be in this category?" It's a maintenance problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This actually is about more than just maintenance. I'm saying it isn't worth keeping in the first place when it doesn't tend to be defining for people as a whole. Having such categories does more bad than good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an archbishop notable for if not for his religion? On the other hand, in many cases for the ordinary worshipper in the pew, whether he is an Anglican or a Baptist is probably NN. In that case, his article should not categorise him by his religion. As others have said, that is an issue in maintaining articles. It is not a reason for removing the category. It may well be that many sub-cats need purging, but one does not fell a tree just because there are a few dead branches on it, unless the whole thing is diseased. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have noted, this is a stupid nomination. It's stupid not just because it displays misinterprets the guidelines, but because the logic applied is spectacularly stupid. I'll to to spell this out as simply as possible, because the nominator is clearly struggling to grasp the replies so far, and maybe a different explanation might be more accessible:
  1. WP:CAT/R asserts that a person should be categorised by religion only if properly sourced
  2. WP:COPDEF reminds us that people should be categorised only if religion is a defining characteristic of them.
So the existence of these categories is irrelevant to those people who are not defined by their religion. If a person is alleged to be a religious ABCXYZist, then we don't categorise them in Category:ABCZYZists unless there are reliable sources both to verify the fact, and to assert its importance.
There's nothing unusual about this. Most categories don't apply to most people.
Most people are not notable for playing sports, so we don't categorise them under Category:Sportspeople.
Most people are not writers, so we don't categorise them under Category:Writers.
Most people are not notable for their political affiliations, so we don't categorise them under Category:People by political orientation.
... and so on. If a category doesn't apply, don't apply it.
But this is where the stupidity comes in.
Many people are defined by their religion. For example Mother Theresa, Daniel O'Connell, William Wilberforce, Tenzin Gyatso, Ian Paisley, Billy Graham, John Knox, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Gleb Yakunin ... and tens of thousands more.
Yes, religion should be discussed in article text, but that's a non-issue in this nomination: no article should be in any category unless the text supports that, with references to reliable source(s).
Categories exist as a navigational device. WP:CAT says:

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

In this case, Category:People by religion is the category tree which allows readers to navigate between these articles on the basis of religion. But the nominator wants to demolish it because it is no use for navigating between the biogs of people who are not defined by religion.
That is why I call this nomination spectacularly stupid. It seeks to demolish a useful set of categories solely because -- like all other categories -- they aren't useful for everything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) I can grasp the responses perfectly fine; I just happen to find their rationales faulty. Disagreeing isn't the same as a lack of understanding 2) Being blatantly patronizing by calling my logic "spectacularly stupid" is totally uncalled for. I was saying that it AS A WHOLE is far more often than not a non-defining trait, and any benefits it might have are outweighed by the negatives. 3) WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant to this discussion. 4) I said specifically that I was aware that there are instances were people are prominently noted for religion, but that is very few compared to the number of people who aren't. I'd guess at least 95% of article subjects aren't really noted for it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Snuggums, this is very simple.
It doesn't matter if 95% of people are not defined by religion. Or even 99.5%. Because the category is needed for the 5% or the 0.5% (or whatever the figure is) for whom it is defining.
People whose religion is not defining should not be categorised in this way, and that has been in the guidelines for years.
If you don't want your arguments to be described as spectacularly stupid, there's a very simple remedy. Don't persist in defending spectacularly stupid arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing if you disagree with an argument or find it faulty, but that doesn't justify being flat out belittling. That's just rude. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep No chance, at this point, that the consensus will turn out otherwise. Perhaps the nominator would consider an RfC to determine whether religion should be used as a defining characteristic, but I imagine it'll turn out much the same as here - just because not everyone placed in this category necessarily belongs here does not mean the whole thing should go. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Part of the problem here is that obituaries are never, ever, ever, ever a reliable source no more how reputable the rest of the publication might be. Paid ones from families and free ones from reporters both tend to leave out prison sentences and fabricate religious affiliation that might belong to relatives but not the deceased. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is too strong. The London Times and other quality newspapers have draft obituaries that they prepare years in advance, but they can reflect the author's attitude to the subject. These are likely to be well researched. On the other hand (as you say), death notices in papers and then reporting in local newspapers generally are often less than wholly objective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for most biographies it's trivial - if it's not mentioned in the first paragraph, which sums up the person's importance, it's likely to be trivial. If the subject is a pope, bishop, mullah, rabbi, pastor, priest, etc., it's likely defining, but for movie stars, writers, sportspeople, politicians, and the rest of secular humanity it's not. And why would we take anyone's word for what they believe in any case? is that a reliable source? or should we look to the person's actions to see if they are 100% consistent with the religion they are assigned: Roman Catholics who divorce or have abortions may claim to be Catholics, in the same way that Kim Jung Il claimed to be democratic, but why give them such deference to something WP thinks is defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about identity than doctrine. It's not our place to assert whether they were true adherents of what they claimed to follow. The category should really only be applied to those who identify as such and had it play an important role in their lives, but we have to go by what they say - if necessary or desired, we can also go by what others say via reliable, third-party sources, but it's not our place to form consensus as to whether a certain philosophical label is applicable. That's getting into territory nobody here wants to go. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Religion is clearly defining to Mitt Romney and hundreds of other individuals. If an editor feels the religion is not defining in an individual case, they can work to have it removed from categorization. No non-defining category has to be left.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough people for whom religion is defining to justify keeping the category. Even if what Carlos and Snuggums say about it not being defining for 80, 90 percent of bios is true (which it very well could be), there are so many bios out there that there's still enough out there to populate the category. pbp 00:50, 6 January 2017 (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:Bethlehem Steel (NAFBL) 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - we only have one article, so only need one category. Having separate categories for each league the team played in is overkill. GiantSnowman 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no need for two separate categories for the same club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- One club, therefore one category. The club closed in 1930,so that there is nothing more recent to merge with. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2016 (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:Atlanta Chiefs (NPSL) 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Same franchise. – Michael (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - we only have one article, so only need one category. Having separate categories for each league the team played in is overkill. GiantSnowman 18:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no need for two separate categories for the same club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2016 (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 Soviet people[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: official term, less ambiguous and more consistent with Fictional modern people category tree. --Atvica (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2016 (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/2016_December_19&oldid=1138409666"