Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:Patriot Rail Corporation[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Company name change. New ownership. Ϫ 22:13, 8 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:Television stations in Villagran[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; upmerge content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential additions beyond what's already here -- and what's already here is a redirect to an article about its parent network, not a standalone article. While a larger media market with several television stations to categorize gets to have one of these, a small market with just one redirect to file in it does not warrant one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: Category:Television stations in Villagran to Category:Villagrán, Tamaulipas, thereby sufficiently expanding scope. We should aim to delete only what can't be fixed or otherwise turned into something useful. PanchoS (talk) 00:08, 12 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:Television stations in San Fernando[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; upmerge content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential additions beyond what's already here -- and what's already here is a redirect to an article about its parent network, not a standalone article. While a larger media market with several television stations to categorize gets to have one of these, a small market with just one redirect to file in it does not warrant one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parent categories. PanchoS (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, there is a redirect to a general Mexican station in this category, that is not defining for San Fernando. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Tamaulipas category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 17 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:Radio stations in Ciudad Camargo[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: dual upmerge, also to Category:Media in Ciudad Camargo. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential additions beyond what's already here. While a mid-sized or major media market with a lot of local radio stations gets to have one of these, small towns that have just one local radio station get categorized only at the statewide level and do not get their own dedicated subcategories just for that one station. Upmerge. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parent categories. PanchoS (talk) 00:08, 12 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:Radio stations in San Fernando[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: dual upmerge, also to Category:Media in San Fernando, Tamaulipas. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential additions beyond what's already here. While a mid-sized or major media market with a lot of local radio stations gets to have one of these, small towns that have just one local radio station get categorized only at the statewide level and do not get their own dedicated subcategories just for that one station. Upmerge. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parent categories. PanchoS (talk) 00:08, 12 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:Biography[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) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is intended for articles and subcategories which are about the literary and filmic genre of biography — things like autobiography, photobiography, Category:Biographical museums, Category:The Biography Channel shows and on and so forth — but even if its purpose is obvious and unambiguous to the experienced editors, in actual practice I have had to check this category at least once a week, for the past goddess only knows how many years, to clean up for the incorrect inclusion of biographical articles about people. This is not the correct usage of the category — we categorize articles on the basis of what the topic is, not on the basis of what the article is, so people go in the appropriate subcategories of the Category:People tree and not here — but at least ten inexperienced users per month have been making this error since time immemorial, and the usage note on the category has never done a good job of controlling the problem. Accordingly, I'm proposing that we rename the category to something more explicitly about the genre of biography, and less likely to be confused with a mass category for every individual biographical article whose topic is a person. I would, additionally, request that the existing category not be kept in place as a categoryredirect to the new one — because if we do that, then any erroneous filings in the redlink are just going to get recatted over to the new one by the bot that automatically cleans up non-empty categoryredirects, so the problem will just carry over. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 8 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:Mayors of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho[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. I've taken the liberty to also upmerge it to Category:Mayors of places in Idaho. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 8 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:Media in San Fernando, Tamaulipas[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. No consensus to convert these into Category:San Fernando, Tamaulipas and Category:Ciudad Camargo, but this does not prohibit future creation of those categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one actual article in this entire category tree, XHSFT-FM. That's right — one category with two subcats housing a redirect, a template and an article for a town with just under 30,000 people.

I'd also like to bundle in Category:Media in Ciudad Camargo, which is equally useless and has one subcategory containing a template and an article. Raymie (t • c) 06:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, as creator of these, Delete. They used to have more than one article each, BTW. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename:
We should aim to delete only what can't be fixed or otherwise turned into something useful. PanchoS (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Media in Ciudad Camargo as I don't even see potential for a category with a broader scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 19 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:Terror attacks committed by paroled Islamic Terrorists[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) 10:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORK, serious violation of WP:CATDEF, potentially prejudicial, poorly worded AusLondonder (talk) 04:17, 8 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:Palestinians inadvertently killed by Palestinian terror attacks[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) 10:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category does not make a great deal of sense. It's name implies it would contain BLPs bios but it simply contains two incidents. Also implies death of civilians was "inadvertent" with no evidence or possibility for citation. Also labelling a terrorist attack "Palestinian" rather than simply criminal terrorism seems inappropriate. Seems a WP:POVFORK. AusLondonder (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointy. Zerotalk 12:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect it's trying to create a friendly fire category but that's difficult in unconventional warfare. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments, and also for its potential for POV categorising. By the way AusLondoner, I doubt there should be any BLP in it, if it's for people who have been killed. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Grutness - very true hahaha. Oops! AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 11 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:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis[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) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of these crimes are not directly related to the European migrant crisis. This category is a WP:POVFORK. Most were allegedly committed by those who arrived from various countries prior to 2015, when our article says the crisis began. Other alleged crimes were not committed by asylum seekers at all AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Could you specify which alleged crimes were not committed by asylum seekers at all ? Stefanomione (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example - the November 2015 Paris attacks AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Actually, User:Stefanomione - the opening sentence of the article European migrant crisis states "The European migrant crisis or European refugee crisis began in 2015" AusLondonder (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The article was CREATED IN 2008. For 6 years, the opening sentence was The crisis began in 2008. Stefanomione (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The European migrant crisis article was not created in 2008, but in April 2015, originally covering the 14 April 2015 shipwreck when 400 migrants died off the Libya coast. It was later moved to "European migrant crisis" in July 2015, when the Mediterranean arrivals and the flow along the Western Balkan route massively increased for the first time in EU history, eliciting an EU-wide response. Nykterinos (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That category is superfluous, too, as it's essentially an empty subcategory of Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea, which include the "Transport disasters related to the European migrant crisis" (since 2015). The only article which is not included in Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea is List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe, but after the August 2015 incidents, no other transport incidents took place on land. Nykterinos (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Between 2008-2014, 400.000 migrants reached Italy. This period is part of the European migrant crisis. Stefanomione (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? As you can see from this chart, half of the 339.914 sea arrivals to Italy in the period 2008-2014 were in 2014 alone; in 2008 the arrivals were only slightly higher than usual (nothing new began in 2008), and in 2009-10 there was the sharpest drop in years. The Italian "crisis" (actually, nothing if compared to Greece last year) began in 2014 (and, as such, is covered in the background of the European migrant crisis), but the European crisis began in 2015. Nykterinos (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just read the section 1.5 of the article European migrant crisis itself - The caption reads The beginning of the crisis in Europe - [3]. You can't qualify the Italian migrant crisis prior-2015 as a non-European non-event. Moreover, the Libyan Crisis, the Operation Mare Nostrum and the Operation Triton all started before 2015, respectively in 2011, 2013 and 2014. Should these events be qualified as not essential to the migrant crisis, as non-European non-events ? Stefanomione (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that title myself, to differentiate that part of the background from the global refugee crisis section. However, I now see that it can be misunderstood. I'll change it to "Background to the crisis in Greece and Italy", as that is, more precisely, what that paragraph is about. If you want, we can continue this discussion on Talk:European migrant crisis, since it's not essential to the discussion on this category. Nykterinos (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "relation" which has to exist between a crime and the European migrant crisis for an article to be included in this category is not clear at all, as the diversity of the articles included in this category shows. As such, the category is of little use and risks being highly POV. Nykterinos (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing completely different topics. The European migrant crisis involves only irregular migrants and asylum seekers, as legal migration has continued unchanged in these years and involves many more people. Some perpetrators of the Paris attacks appear to have re-entered Europe together with refugees and migrants, but they were EU nationals clearly not fleeing war, they just took advantage of the flow to sneak back undetected. The Petra László tripping incident, which is included in the category, was not committed by a migrant but by a Hungarian camerawoman. All this shows that editors interpret the category in a highly subjective manner, as "Crimes related to the European migrant crisis" can mean anything or nothing. Nykterinos (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : You're right - They appear to have re-entered Europe together with refugees and migrants, but they were EU nationals clearly not fleeing war, they just took advantage of the flow to sneak back undetected ... So, the two events are clearly RELATED. The attack couldn't have taken place without the migrant crisis. ... The same logic with the camera woman ... Both notable facts ('encyclopedially' + media coverage) categorized within related event-categories. Stefanomione (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same definition you gave above of the "relation" which has to exist between the crime and the crisis. A category which is used to categorize articles on the basis of their defining characteristics cannot rest on a non-defined "relation", which is an intrinsically vague term. Nykterinos (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Further comment This case is similar to the policy against the categories "People associated with": "The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" [or "relation"] is necessary to qualify a person [or a crime] for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" [or "related with X"] categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association may fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY". (WP:OCASSOC). Nykterinos (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not theoretically opposed to some well defined category in this topic area but this article sounds like it's about the post WWII era, it's not clear what counts and what doesn't, and without such clarity the topic comes off as tabloid-esque.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the time being I'd consider migrant crisis and crimes to be a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "related-to" is inherently WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE (and is further complicated in this case as how closely a crime is related to the refugee crisis will vary with time as details emerge about suspects, suspects are released without charge...). Even if for some crimes the link to the refugee crisis is a defining characteristic it's still not a good way to categorize crimes (characteristics like type, country and year are much better). DexDor (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Parsley Man (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category lends itself to de facto unsupported and/or incorrect POV claims. Claims related to criminal behaviour require strong, explicit references. The criteria for inclusion are unclear and difficult to define. --Boson (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep: I could be wrong, but there seems to be a lot of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT going around lately. It would appear to me that, at the very least, WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read NOTCENSORED? it's about "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive". This discussion is about categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ceannlann gorm - please feel free to stop throwing around baseless allegations. AusLondonder (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ceannlann gorm hits the nail on the head. This deletion is an attempt to enforce a sort of gag rule on categories that pertain to the #1 political issue in Europe. Wikipedia ceases to be a useful resource when significant topics are censored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, @E.M.Gregory: - this deletion is an attempt to enforce basic standards and follow policy regarding categorisation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, some of us think Wikipedia should chronicle reality [4], [5] not spin it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is no place of censorship and political correctness here, these events happened relating to the migrant crisis. It is irrelevant that these events are uncomfortable for AusLondonder, who always uses Wikipedia to express his extremist-liberal view and propaganda. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, User:Norden1990. This has nothing to do with censorship let alone so-called "political correctness" (a trump card usually referenced by those defending themselves against accurate allegations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) and everything to do with Wikipedia's categorisation policies, which I would invite you to read. Can I ask you three simple questions though? 1. When do I "always" use Wikipedia to express my "extremist-liberal" views and promote propaganda? 2. How do you know what my political views are? 3. Have you read WP:NPA? AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainly because the nominator thinks that anyone mentioning political correctness is default guilty of what they are accused of. This shows this nomination is in fact motivated by desires of censurship and shaping Wikipedia to advance a particular set of political views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: What are you talking about? AusLondonder (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's stalking and harassing of editors who disagree with him on other pages as here:[6] is reprehensible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are a disgusting liar @E.M.Gregory:. I have not harassed anyone nor stalked. I nominated that article for deletion so I saw the comment and replied totally separately. Your deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of me here borders on disruptive behaviour. You have replied to and harassed practically every single delete !vote at that AFD. How can you seriously criticise me for doing it once?!? AusLondonder (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the four keep !votes above attempt to reply to the policy-based objections previously expressed by several editors, that this category violates WP: OCASSOC, WP: SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Because of these problems, disagreements have already emerged between editors, whether an article fits in this category or not. By shifting the discussion to alleged “censorship” and “political correctness”, the keep !votes above violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Nykterinos (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, in addition crimes/criminals that used the crisis as a cover also should be included, because they are clearly related. This can also be precisely defined.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the migrant involved" mean? Are they involved only if they are perpetrators of the crime or also if they are victims? (until hours ago, the category also included the Petra László tripping incident, now it's been removed - a subjective yet legitimate choice, once again). The perpetrators of the Paris attacks were not immigrants, but EU nationals. The suspect of the January 2016 Paris police station attack didn't enter Europe during the migrant crisis, and Gerry1214 had to find another "relation" to include it. And so on... a non-defined "relation" can't be a defining characteristic used to categorize an article. Nykterinos (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not such a big problem to define a precise relation, but that some people invest a lot of energy to deny any relation - against all sourced facts. I'm sorry, but this leads me again to Wikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it one last time: even leaving aside the fact that no one has been able to "define a precise relation" so far, the problem is that categories can't be clearly defined, because categories have no definition: they have to be clearly named, and this is not. ("related to" is deprecated, like "associated with": see WP:OCASSOC). Nykterinos (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it funny how when people lose policy-based consensus argument they scream "censorship" and "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" AusLondonder (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nykerinos. Some of the perps in these crimes entered Europe during the crisis; one lived in a refugee hostel by pretending a refugee who had entered during this crisis, others were committed jihadis who used the crisis as cover to re-enter the EU undetected for the purpose of committing mass murder.Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis seems reasonable to me. Let's give other editors a chance to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete its just a coatrack for original research ----Snowded TALK 10:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, a coatrack for original research. It omits, say, the Huguenots fleeing France, Jews fleeing Germany, Former Yugoslavia, Uganda, Nigeria etc etc. (Weren't these all a migrant crisis, too?). All of which, under the present title, should be included. It appears to only contain crimes committed BY migrants, and should include crimes committed ON migrants (and yes there have been plenty of them, too). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I copy from a similar nomination where one editor correctly pointed out, "related to" should not be used in category names as it is inherently subjective" --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A crime on migrants has been included now : the Petra László tripping incident. The relation between these categorized incidents and the migrant crisis has been clearly established now, as is , e.g., the relation between Italian immigration in the US and Italian-American organized crime. Stefanomione (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that it could be changed to Category:Crimes by individuals entering during the European migrant crisis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, such category can't be created at all. A similar category attempting to categorize crimes by perpetrator, Category:Crimes committed by asylum seekers, has already been deleted, as you know since you created it, so stop POV-pushing, please. "Individuals entering during the European migrant crisis" doesn't even make sense. Nykterinos (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a policy against categorizing crimes according to the legal status of the perpetrator? Can you link to it? I'm trying to make sense of this discussion, beyond the obvious BATTLEGROUND and IDONTLIKEIT tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's no policy specifically against such a category - just as there's no policy specifically against thousands of possible categories (crimes committed in February?). If it's not obvious why categorizing crimes by the status of (one of) the (alleged) perpetrators is not a good way to categorize crimes then see my comment of 10th Feb. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thank you. I do wish that editors would not make assertions like: "No, such (a) category can't be created at all", which intimidates me and other relatively new and/or infrequent editors into assuming that we/I have violated another one of Wikipedia's arcane and difficult to find rules. So, to me, it seems that Wikipedia should reflect sources and conversations in the real world, and advocates of generous asylum polices seem to spend as much time asserting the law-abiding nature of the current wave of economic migrants/asylum seekers as advocates of restrictive asylum policies spend focusing on their criminality and the potential for committed jihadis to sneak into Europe by passing as legitimate migrants. To me this category (which I did not create) should be kept because it reflects a category that is a major subject of political, media, and social media conversation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 24 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_8&oldid=1138409762"