Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:Urban Book Circle[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 11:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was surprised to see the category appear on the bio article for recently deceased Canadian filmmaker Gil Cardinal, as I'd read a detailed obituary about him in the Globe and Mail with no mention of any such affiliation. We do have a main article with a link to an official website that does claim Cardinal as a "Honourable Member." However, a Google news search for this organization yields zero results. This predominantly Serbian "literary society based in Canada... gathers writers and artists world-wide," the EL says. Despite claim and whatever the "gathering" entails, it is clearly WP:NON-DEFINING for those gathered, it seems. I have also nominated the main article for deletion, however it is of course possible for the organization to be notable enough for an article, but still not sufficiently defining to be a bio category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, in anticipation of the main article being deleted imminently. As Shawn says, the group seems to have no lasting significance yet. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As creator of the category, I clearly believe it should not be deleted. Tempo21 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, the articles only tell that the persons of this category were "a contributor" and a "honorable member" and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining for the individuals involved. They are gathered because they are notable, they do not develop their literary output as part of this group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not create membership categories for organizations, if that organization's own self-published content about itself is the only source extant for the members' participation. If reliable source coverage attested to this organization playing a significant role in these writers' careers, then the category might be justified — but if even the members' obituaries are failing to mention it at all, then it's a non-defining thing that we can't categorize them on. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that the main article Urban Book Circle has just been deleted at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 20 February 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.

Kurdish secession[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 to merge everything to a single Category:Kurdish separatism, but there does seem to be consensus to change "secession" to "separatism" in Category:Kurdish secession in Iran and Category:Kurdish secession in Turkey, so those will be renamed. A follow-up nomination might be necessary for the parent and grandparent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it's useless for a category to only contain one child category and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: these original nominations are no longer applicable as can be read in the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Kurdish separatism. There are separatist movements in several countries. The fact that categories also relate to Turkey, Iran, etc can be dealt with by categorising articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 7 February 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:Cite jstor templates[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) 02:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these are actually template:cite jstor templates (which is deprecated) so they may as well be moved to the category for template:cite doi (which is also deprecated). The cite jstor template worked by creating a cite doi wrapper (which itself was a cite journal wrapper) with a jstor parameter. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 5 February 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:Surgical clothing[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 11:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an example of a small category that is unlikely to grow any larger. Other categories included in Category:Clothing by type contains categories regarding types of clothing that are unrelated to activity or occupation. Liz Read! Talk! 11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't share the nominator's conceptual concern with the category but it only contains one article that is arguably not "clothing" (Surgical mask). RevelationDirect (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect that the category has scope for expansion. Patients are given surgical gowns; and the medics wear "scrubs", bot of which are clothing that no one would wear except in hospital. I appreciate that some used may not be strictly related to surgery. Possibly, Category:Hospital clothing might be an alternative, but I prefer the present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Medical clothing to grow it? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as an actually empty category, per RelevationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there may be scope for a category Category:Medical clothing, but 1 article can't create this, even if we were sure a mask was clothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 16 February 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:Animal records[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another ill-defined category, what is considered a "record"? Each article included in this category needs an explanation of why it is this category as it is far from obvious what pages should be in a category with this title. Liz Read! Talk! 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – irretrievably bad idea. Oculi (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if we can determine what record these animals represent or delete as vague since we cannot determine it -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - thought it ought be recordings of animal sounds, but whodathunk? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 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:Secession by region[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 11:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category too ill-defined, field is already covered by Category:Secession by country. Liz Read! Talk! 11:28, 5 February 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:Jains of the Middle Ages[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like the Jainism in the Middle Ages, this is a strange categorization. The Middle Ages from what I can tell are time period but it's relevance is largely related to Europe in that period. I don't see any indication that the Jain people here have any relationship to the Middle Ages other than just the years it's put. Jainism during this time was focused on Southeast Asia so the cross-reference is very odd. The category makes even less sense when you consider this is a child category of Category:Medieval people which is for "People who lived in Europe during the Middle Ages." Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 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:Jainism of the Middle Ages[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a strange categorization like the similarly listed Jains ones. The Middle Ages from what I can tell are time period but it's relevance is largely related to Europe in that period. Jainism during this time was focused on Southeast Asia so the cross-reference is very odd. The only thing in this category is Jainism by century articles that just are tagged here and the Jains of the Middle Ages category. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 5 February 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.

History of Brazil by period[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/rename as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge the two pairs of nearly overlapping categories (there is a tiny non-overlapping part from 1815-1822 with one article Kingdom of Brazil to be moved manually) and rename the third category to fit in the Category:Modern history by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first two, keep last one. Modern history is generally considered to have begun sometime from 1789-1815, no later than 1830, so the modern name would be misleading. And that is only when it is contrasted to early modern, and I still be placing the date to recent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further reading in the article on modern history places its beganning after either the French revolution (started 1789) or the Industrial Revolution. That is dated from about 1760 to either 1820 or 1840. Any way you look it it much if not all of the Empire of Brazil falls under modern history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 16 February 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:College club sports associations in the United States[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, without prejudice against any of the other proposals of User:SMcCandlish beside merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant fork. Both are sibling categories under Category:College sports organizations in the United States, and orgs. are being randomly categorized into one or the other (e.g. different men's lacrosse orgs. in both, women's in just one). All of the members of the club sports cat. are governing bodies. This "club sports" category appears to have been created by a non-North American, since these are referred to as "team sports" in N.Am. English. In theory, a team sports subcat. of college sports governing bodies in the US could exist, but it would leave very little in the parent cat.; there are not enough articles and subcats. to bother with; and the present club sports one isn't categorized in any way in the team/club sports category tree, so nothing is lost by just merging this to the US college sports governing bodies cat. PS: "associations" was too limiting to begin with; some of them are named differently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:SPORT has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This is not a fork. The nominator here appears to be unaware of the usage of "club sports" in the United States. Please see Collegiate club sports for an explanation. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there's a neologism at work here, addressed in one article (which is not associated with this category at all, much less atop it). It has one secondary source. All the rest is primary sourcing from non-WP:INDY websites promoting the concept. Even the lone secondary source says it's "a largely unnoticed phenomenon" (i.e., this raises WP:N concerns). Regardless, there's still an obvious categorization problem here. Our article says "Collegiate club sports are any sports offered at a university or college that compete competitively with other universities, or colleges, but are not regulated by the [NCAA] or a similar intercollegiate athletic association." So, how can we possibly have a category for intercollegiate athletic associations relating to a subset of collegiate sporting that does not have intercollegiate athletic associations? The article is confused and confusing; most of its weak sourcing is to the very intercollegiate, albeit one-sport, athletic associations the article's lead suggests do not exist. Surely the oldest organization of this sort is ACUI (since 1927), and they do not use this "college club sports" term. I think this is a WP:DICDEF labeling exercise. Some intercollegiate athletic organizations are choosing for 'branding" purposes to use this term, to distance themselves from big-money and red-tape in collegiate sports, and that is all. Why would we need a category for them, and why on earth would be a sibling not child cat.?

A response of "oppose merge" does nothing to address the problems here. Either a) we need to merge these and get rid of a bogus category; or b) the article needs to be corrected, Category:College club sports associations in the United States made to be a subcat., not sibling cat., of Category:College sports governing bodies in the United States, and either b1) a lot of things classified in the latter parent cat. need to be more narrowly classified in the subcat., if there's a clear objective definition, or b2) nothing should be in the subcat. unless their own materials state that they identify as "college club sport" organizations. But going either version of the don't-merge route depends on there being a clear and sensible definition of what a "college club sport" is and means, that allows for it to actually have intercollegiate governing bodies at all, and to categorically distinguish them from NCAA and other intercollegiate governing bodies in a way that makes sense to readers, is supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources (as well as by the organizations themselves), and doesn't raise WP:NPOV / WP:NOR problems (e.g. viewpoints against the involvement of formal university administration, and/or against money in collegiate sports, etc.; those views clearly have something to do with the genesis of "college club sports" but they can't be presented in Wikipedia's own voice). It's unclear how to distinguish these new organizations from others that pre-date them but are not among the major "establishments" in American university sports. What is the definitional dividing line between "college club sports" organizations and semi-large organizations like National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics? Or the much smaller, and newer, and less popular-sport College Curling USA? I repeat that the inclusion in this category appears to be entirely arbitrary, based on no actual criterion. At Collegiate club sports#List of collegiate club sports, almost everything imaginable is included, so it has nothing to do with what the sport is, or whether it's a team vs. individual sport. There's either a definable difference in how these organizations operate, or it's political stance-taking, and we need to be clear which. If it's only the latter, we probably do not even need a subcat. for it because, yes, it is a fork (a WP:POVFORK in particular).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, well, I guess every word is a neologism depending on how long we consider the "neo" period to be. As neologisms go, "club sports" is way older than neologisms like "wiki". Most of the notable American college sports are "varsity" sports. Those are sports teams that officially represent their college or university and are sanctioned by organizations, like the NCAA or NAIA, that impose fairly strict governance. Eligibility requirements and athletic scholarships often apply to varsity sports. Such sport teams are part of a given college's athletic department and under the purview of the college's athletic director. "Club sports" are far more informal. Within the organization of an individual college or university, club sports are are like other student clubs, like the French club, or the jazz club, or the tutor-kids-in-the-local-public-school club, except that their theme is a sport. The amount of content about club sports that is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia is going to be minimal, I would guess nothing more than a main article, which I have renamed College club sports in the United States, and a few high-level organizations like those found in Category:College club sports associations in the United States, now a sub-category of Category:College club sports in the United States, which I just created. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "College club sports" is a widely recognized and widely used term within American universities and colleges, and was already well established by the early 1980s when I entered college. "College club sports" are defined in contrast to the varsity sports teams of a college or university, which are often collectively to referred to as "intercollegiate sports." All intercollegiate sports in the United States are regulated by either the NCAA (most colleges and universities) or the NAIA (small colleges), which regulate their members institution for team and athlete eligibility and require their members to only schedule athletic contests against varsity teams from other member institutions of the NCAA or NAIA. It's a closed loop that also defined eligibility for athletic grants-in-aid ("athletic scholarships") for athletes who attend institutions who are members of NCAA Division I and Division II. The NCAA and NAIA are comprehensive, all-sports associations that regulate the sports, coaches, athletes, teams and member institutions, and have the authority to discipline the coaches, athletes, teams and institutions. The member institutions, or their non-profit athletic associations, pay all costs associated with team expenses, coaches salaries, athletic scholarships for the athletes, equipment and facilities. The varsity teams of an American university or college are its official representatives in athletic competition, and the institutional support for such teams varies from tens of thousands of dollars per team in NAIA to tens of millions of dollars per team in NCAA Division I. Head coaches in Division I sports may receive 6 or 7-figure salaries.
In contrast, college club sports are not "official" representatives of their institutions, and what minor supplemental funding they receive is often from their student government, intramural sports department, or student activities division. Coaches are either students or volunteers, and usually receive no compensation. Members of college club sports are usually responsible for the costs associated with their own uniforms, equipment and travel, and rely on general purpose sports fields on and off-campus for their matches. In contrast to Division I sports, college club sports receive almost zero media coverage. The distinctions in official recognition, financial support, media coverage and fan support for intercollegiate sports and college club sports is like and day, and those distinctions are universal and well understood. Categorizing intercollegiate sports with college sports would be a mistake. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you'll forgive a little WP:OR, my experience was that the club sports were sanctioned by the student government and the varsity teams were sanctioned by the athletics department so both were officially sanctioned and represented the college in their own way. The largest distinction was student coaches vs. staff coaches. The small colleges that fall outside of the NCAA (which dominates US college sports) make things trickier since some leagues allow both types of teams and may make categorization more difficult. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: The correct distinction is intercollegiate sports vs. club sports. Even for the smallest colleges that field intercollegiate varsity teams, they are still regulated by the NAIA and fully funded by their parent institution's athletic department or affiliated non-profit athletic association. There is no overlap with club sports, even at the small college level. It's either an intercollegiate sport with full financial support and outside regulation by the NCAA or NAIA, or it's a club sport partially funded by student government, student services and the students themselves. The level of recognition and financial support is like night and day. Intercollegiate sports and club sports are two very different animals. As far as I am aware, no association or league sanctions play between intercollegiate sports teams and club sports teams, and that would be a violation of NCAA and NAIA rules. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defer to your expertise on the non-NCAA NAIA teams; thanks for the correction. "Intercollegiate" may have a technical meaning here but, just to be clear, both the athletic department teams and club teams generally compete between colleges. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from outside): the two things sound extremely similar to me. All seem to be regulatory or organising bodies for student sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to maintain the distinction between varsity and non-varsity student athletics. As Jweiss11 and Dirtlawyer1 have noted, this is a hugely important distinction that exists in the real world, and our category structure here on Wikipedia should reflect that. Mixing categories on varsity and non-varsity athletics together is a bad idea, and is almost guaranteed to confuse our readers (for example, leading readers to think that non-varsity student clubs like the ACHA leagues and varsity student athletic conferences like the WCHA are somehow equivalent. They're not.) Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll concede on the merge suggestion, then, though a) the college club sports bodies cat. still needs to be a sub-cat. not sister cat. of the college sports one; b) it's still likely that various orgs. are in one and should be in the other; c) the inclusion criteria need to be spelled out clearly atop the category, because "hugely important" as this may be to some people, it's esoteric hairsplitting to the average person. Students are playing sports. There are organizations for this. Readers want to find them. They don't want "my kind of organization is more important than your" junk waved in their face while they're looking. If there's an encyclopedic reason to draw this sort of distinction, it should be done clearly and without impeding reader needs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Club sports is a recognized and well used term, even if the article on it does not adequately reflect its use in secondary sources. Here is a New York Times article on club sports from 2008 [1]. I do find their mention of "adult leadership" in the college setting odd, since I consider virtually all college students to be adults, maybe helped by the fact I attended BYU (where 75% of male students are 21 or older), as well as Wayne State University and Eastern Michigan University, the later two with many "non-traditional" students. I had at least one undergrad in a history class I took at EMU in 2012 who remembered experiencing the 1967 Detroit race riot in a periferal way as a teenager. I do know that on the other hand I had a friend who was a student at the University of Michigan and had served an LDS mission and so as a 23-year-old he felt way older than his classmates. So it seems elite schools have maintained the out by 22 model, but other schools have not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to make things even more confusing, I am getting the impression that there are at some universities 4 levels of athletic teams. The lowest in intramural, which competes in the school. Next are the club teams, then extra-mural non-NCAA, and then NCAA. BYU just added women's lacrosse as an extra-mural team, but it had a women's lacrosse team that competed in inter-collegiate competition before. BYU's men's soccer team is actually part of the primer development league, so what it is exactly is hard to say. It doesn't help that few sources explain what is going on here. However with BYU press releases mentioning head coaches appointed for the women's lacrosse team it is clearly not a standard club sport, but it is not full NCAA either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 16 February 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_February_5&oldid=1079915063"