Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Category:Economic globalization indices[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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, per actual content of the category, none of the articles is about globalization as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 4 November 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:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media[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. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in three ways: remove portrayals (redundant), change Mormons to Latter Day Saints (to align with Category:Latter Day Saints) and change media to culture (to align with Category:Christianity in popular culture). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They prefer to be called LDS, not Mormons. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 6 November 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:La Liga clubs 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. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes all the final matches of the eurocups with the Spanish clubs. But this matches are just included to the categories Category:Real Madrid C.F. matches, Category:FC Barcelona matches, Category:Valencia CF matches etc, which are subcategories of the Category:Spanish football club matches. Nothing to require a separate category -- it is enough the Category:Spanish football club matches with the subcategories per each club. Besides, we have similar categories neither for Serie A (Italy) no for Bundesliga etc {see Category:Football clubs in European football). It are seen no reasons for the existence of an exception for Spain. Unikalinho (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category page was not tagged until today. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:56, 4 November 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:Plants in popular culture[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was created as Category:Plants in culture but was moved to Category:Plants in popular culture last year by User:Kanghuitari. I think Category:Plants in culture, as the broader term, would be more suitable as the category name. (One of its subcats is Category:Plants in religion, and I doubt that most people would regard religion as a subset of pop culture.) Paul_012 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 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:School police departments of the United Kingdom[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both are university police forces. Universities are never referred to as schools in the UK and police forces are never referred to as police departments. Both are Americanisms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The nom is correct re the UK. In fact the article for the parent is Campus police and so the parent category could be renamed to Category:Campus police. 62.64.155.196 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The main article also needs renaming to match that, as does the parent. The two UK forces are not campus police, because neither of the universities have a campus. Both consist of colleges scattered all over those cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 6 November 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:Promotional models[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 to Category:Model cars, and purge inappropriate member pages. – Fayenatic London 07:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to disambiguate from promotional models as described in the article which is about women instead of cars. The suggested new name is based on the article Model car, this narrows the scope of the category a bit, so articles which no longer belong should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding this category, I suppose this makes an appropriate merge target (instead of rename). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can go along with that, although there may be some who want to distinguish toys (to be played with) and models (accurate portrayals and often for display). Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:02, 5 November 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:Bubble in fiction[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) 07:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I procedurally declined speedy deletion, but I will nominate for deletion, using the speedy nominator's reason, to wit:

I concur with that user's reasoning as outlined in the above previous discussions. Safiel (talk) 03:41, 4 November 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:Supernatural fiction[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. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. JDDJS (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supernatural fiction should be a subcategory of category:supernatural and and category:speculative ficiton--Taeyebar 23:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories are not redundant. Category:Supernatural does not only contain fiction; rather, it contains numerous things (witches, banshees, leprechauns, succubi, miracles, fairies, etc.) which, regardless of any POV debate about whether they really correspond to real-world things or not, inarguably exist as real-world concepts. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 6 November 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:Presbyterian mayors[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) 07:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no overall scheme for either Category:Presbyterian politicians or Category:Mayors by religion. It's a more or less trivial intersection of otherwise potentially defining characteristics, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This tree contains one article, being a triple intersection. That article may need a Presbyterian category adding. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In a country which is predominantly Christian to begin with, which particular Christian denomination a mayor happens to belong to is not WP:DEFINING of their mayoralty in any non-trivial way. Jews, Muslims or Buddhists might be different, but the question of whether a mayor was Presbyterian, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist or United-Church, when all of those are simply denominations within the majority religious grouping in Canada, is of little substantive consequence. Watson should be readded to Category:Canadian Presbyterians — but a subcategory linking his religion to his mayoralty, as if that intersection of traits were a defining characteristic in its own right, is not warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection of religion and job and country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why the nom refuses to inform me of nominations of categories of which I am the creator - I find the attitude of this ADMIN rather insulting I created this category when I noticed the existence of Category:Jewish mayors. I realize that Jewishness is sometimes used as an ethnicity as well as a religion. But shouldn't this be somehow clarified? Is it now acceptable to create categories of people by religion?Ottawahitech (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_21#Politicians_by_religion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_21#Academics_by_religion. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
You're using discussions that resulted in those categories being deleted to support that these categories should be kept? Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've twigged onto the correct distinction — Jewish is not just a religion, but an ethnicity — but the other consideration you've missed is that regardless of whether you treat it as a religious grouping or an ethnic one, they're a group who historically faced discrimination in many societies (including Canada), and thus had structural and social disadvantages that made it harder for a Jew to succeed in politics than it ever was for a Christian. But the existence of a category for Jewish mayors does not mean we want or need a comprehensive scheme of catting all mayors by their religious affiliations — Christian politicians are not defined by which particular Christian denomination they happen to belong to, because there has never been any notable history of anti-Presbyterian discrimination in Canada or elsewhere that impacted whether a Presbyterian could become a mayor or not. The overwhelming majority of all mayors in Canada have been Christians of one denomination or another, so it would be entirely pointless and unmaintainable to subcat people on a religion-occupation intersection that represents the norm for that occupation. (By comparison, it would be entirely pointless for exactly the same reasons to balance "women mayors" directly against "male mayors", "Black Canadian politicians" directly against "White Canadian politicians", or "LGBT politicians" directly against "heterosexual politicians"). We categorize on defining characteristics, not on every conjunction of unrelated traits that merely happens to be shared by a number of people.
And as has been pointed out to you before, while Wikipedia certainly recommends notifying the content creator of a deletion discussion, we do not have any rule that failing to do so is an actionable issue that can lead to sanctions. Whether notifications should happen or not, the reality is that for a variety of reasons (including purely technical ones for which nobody could legitimately be blamed at all) you're simply not going to always get them — so it is ultimately your responsibility to watchlist anything you feel strongly about rather than attacking the nominator for not notifying you. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I appreciate your long an complicated reply explaining why we have a category: Jewish mayors. However, as a contributor to Wikipedia categories it is still not clear to me (and, I suspect, to others) what the wp:guidelines are when creating wp:religion-related categories.
As far as your advice about my responsibility(?) "to watchlist anything you feel strongly about" it would probably take me much less effort to simply stalk the edits both you and User:Good Olfactory make to wp:CfD since you are the only editors who nominate many of the categories I create for deletion without bothering to notify me. However, stalking takes time and will be at the expense of other contributions I would rather make to Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
The guideline you claim is lacking most certainly does exist, actually: religion-related categories are covered by WP:CATEGRS (ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality) rules. In this particular situation, the relevant section is the one on "special subcategories": for these categories to be justified, "Presbyterian" would have to have a directly relevant, WP:DEFINING relationship with "mayor". It's not enough that mayors existed who were Presbyterians, because the category system is not just a way to create lists of everything it might be possible to create a list of — the Presbyterianism and the mayoralty would have to have a direct and substantive impact on each other.
And for the record, watchlisting things doesn't require any grand herculean effort on your part — all you have to do is click a little star on the top of the page, and then check your watchlist once in a while. In what way is that even remotely harder than actively wikistalking other people would be? Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 11 November 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:American horror fiction television series[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 keep, without prejudice against renominating together with the siblings and parent (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Including fiction in the title is not necessary. It's not include in Category:American horror novels or Category:American horror films. JDDJS (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator in principle, but Category:Horror fiction television series by country, and the six other country-specific subcategories that are siblings to this one, are also named in the same format — which means the same issue applies to all of them, not just to this one alone. Procedural keep, pending resubmission as a batch. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 6 November 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_November_4&oldid=1074817297"