Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26[edit]

Category:Doop (band) songs[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) 06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There appears to only be one such song Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this one is definitely a keep via WP:SMALLCAT: part of the long established Category:Songs by artist ("Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded"). Oculi (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. Long-established category scheme. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 27 October 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 Middlesbrough[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; merge contents to Category:People from Middlesbrough, as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesnt really make sense by using "in" and is not part of a recognised category tree as far as I can see, clearly duplicates Category:People from Middlesbrough which should be used instead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 26 October 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:LGBT people opposing same-sex marriage[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 by nominator. Brandmeistertalk 17:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We usually don't categorize people by their opinion on one particular subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category is so titled so vaguely as to be useless. Does it refer to any LGBT people who ever expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in any context or only to those who actively continue to oppose it or what? It's not clear. In looking over the category's articles, I see two subjects that probably don't even meet the broader standard. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is notable. We have other 'oppose' cats, such as Category:Anti-communists. Jim Michael (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that this is a fair comparison. Presumably "anti-movement" is more defining for a person than "anti-single-issue". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons listed by Jim Michael. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem here isn't that it's an "oppose" category; it's that people are in here for too many wildly different reasons to be usefully grouped together on that basis. Among the six people categorized here, we have six completely different rationales for inclusion, not all of which qualify as actual opposition — Bindel wants government to get out of the marriage biz entirely, so that all couples whether OS or SS would be treated equally under the umbrella of civil partnership instead of marriage; Coburn opposed it on community safety grounds, arguing that it exacerbates homophobia from the anti-SS activists; Jordan personally supports it, but voted against Hawaii's law on the grounds that she perceived her constituents to be opposed; Pierce argued against Britain's law on the grounds that the existing civil partnerships law was already enough; Sycamore just thinks LGBT people have more urgent issues to worry about; and Yiannopoulos is the only one here whose reasoning against SSM ever resembled actual opposition to the fundamental principle of LGBT relationship recognition, rather than simply quibbling with its form or its timing.
    Which means we've got five people here for whom it doesn't really apply ("we should move away from civil marriage actually being a thing at all for anyone", "this is not the right time for this yet", "this is not a priority", "we already effectively have all the same rights anyway" and/or "I have to put my constituents ahead of my personal views" are not the same argument as "this is an objectively bad thing that should never happen at all"), and zero people who are in here for the same reason as anybody else — and that's just not a very WP:DEFINING basis for a category that lumps them together as having anything in common with each other.
    Also, I'm not sure I get why this happened at all — why did the nominator create the category, file the articles in it, and then immediately list his own creation for CFD just four minutes later? What's the point of creating a brand new category just to list it for deletion right away? Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your strategy was to immediately shift them into a new subcategory you were then going to immediately list for deletion, instead of just removing them from the inappropriate original category like almost anybody else would have? That doesn't really make it any more understandable. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marco, why did you nominate the category for deletion four minutes after you created it? Jim Michael (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure that plainly removing the category from the articles would be appropriate, therefore initiated the discussion. I'm willing to accept the possible outcome of the discussion that the subcategory as I created it is appropriate after all (although that's not what I'm proposing). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the parent cat in regard to who should be included in it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Michael's right...if that's what you wanted to do, you should have initiated a discussion, perhaps via RFC, on the category's talk page rather than creating a new category you're intending to immediately nominate for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a stale deadlocked discussion from October 8, as it hasn't attracted any new input there in two weeks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that LGBT people oppose such marriage is rather unique, biographically valuable and thus falls under WP:COPDEF. Brandmeistertalk 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Strong oppose withdrawal The big problem is that we do not categorize people for individual votes. If this category was limited to people who had publicly expressed opposition to redefining marriage from a man/woman institution to one that did not require those entering it two be of two different sexes, than it would be a workable category. However in the case of Jo Jordan we are categorizing her based on one single vote during her career as a member of the Hawaii legislature. This creates a horrible precedent that would send us down a path we do not want to take. We need to limit opposition/support categories to people for whom their taking a postion on the issue involved rises to a higher level. There is just no justification for this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 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:Macedonian doctors[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, without prejudice to a future broader discussion about doctor categories across countries (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the only article to Category:Macedonian physicians. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- It is far from clear from the articles what kind of medic the three people are. One was only a medical student when notable, though he had presumably now qualified. This is an Americanism. In Europe, physician is a subset of doctor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: please clarify your intention here: are you suggesting that Category:Macedonian physicians should be merged to Category:Macedonian doctors? We have Category:Physicians by nationality, but no Category:Doctors by nationality. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes -- Because physician in British English is a hospital speciality. The equivalent of the American usage is "General Practitioner". I am suggesting that we should stick with the vague term, rather than using a specific one that is alien. It is common for child categories not to match their parent, because the child should conform to local (e.g. national) usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 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_October_26&oldid=1138410394"