Category:Visual artists of the African diaspora[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and unmaintainable category, which in practice is simply duplicating existing categories rather than adding anything new. This started out defined by its own initial usage note as being a WikiProject's internal task list, but it was filed as a mainspace category instead of a projectspace category, so I converted it to projectspace accordingly. But somebody other than the original creator has since reverted that and edited the usage note to redefine it as a mainspace content category. However, as a content category it has an impossibly broad scope, because it would have to include every visual artist in the entire world who is of African descent at all -- and in actual practice, it's currently being used for just 13 articles total, all of whom are already appropriately categorized for their Africanness anyway (for example, Julian Abele is already in Category:African-American artists, Adebisi Akanji is already in Category:Nigerian artists, and on and so forth -- and we won't even get into the fact that a Nigerian artist is from Africa, and not of the African diaspora.) So this isn't adding anything of value to the category system that other categories aren't already covering, and it would be a massively overpopulated megacategory if it were fully populated with all of its possible contents -- both of which mean it's just not a useful category. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category's focus changed which I tried to note. Both myself and Heathart are actively using this category to categorize a somewhat narrow range of Visual artists. It is not meant to be comprehensive but inclusive and helpful. I don't understand why this is such a problem and don't care for the snarky tone or the deletionist attack. The category IS adding a much needed focus to Wikipedia as this is a category that is meant to be inclusive of many intersectional visual artists. I hope you will consider and be kind here. If category administration -- and conversation -- is approached in this way I am not surprised editors shy away from using them for much beyond stub sorting. I really want to use categories but I don't want to have to argue something that is genuinely meant to be productive. I am going through a list slowly which is why it isn't fully populated. I should have it done in the next 10 days. Please reconsider deleting. BrillLyle (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not meant to include a personally curated partial selection of the potential scope of the topic — they're meant to contain all examples of the topic, period. A projectspace category cannot flag certain articles as being within the scope of a category while deliberately excluding other topics that share the same characteristic for reasons other than whether they fit the criteria or not — if you want a category for "these are the articles that this particular project is interested in maintaining, but we're leaving other examples of the same thing out because we're not personally concerning ourselves with them right now", then you have to do that in projectspace and not in mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is reasonable. I think you are illustrating the limitation and problems with using categories. It's why editors refuse to learn categories on Wikipedia. And it's why I will never advocate for them having value to new editors. Hope you're happy. You're turning away an opportunity to have a positive experience here. This is really problematic and awful. Congrats. BrillLyle (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The job of a mainspace category is to include, either directly or through parenting of more specific subcategories, every article that fits the classification defined by the category's name — a mainspace category is not allowed to be curated for one or two particular editors' personal selection of the articles they care about, but is meant to be inclusive of all articles that all editors might be looking for if they're searching for that particular classification of topic. Inclusion in a mainspace category is all or nothing, not "one or two editors get to pick certain topics that they're choosing to highlight while intentionally leaving other examples of the same classification out". And there's nothing "unreasonable" or "problematic" about that, either — the category system does not exist as a platform for creating lists of every thing it might be conceivably possible to create a list of, right down to "my own personal favourite things" or "the articles I'm choosing to devote my personal editing attention to right now". We categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not on every characteristic that might happen to be shared by two or more people — and as I've already stated, all of the artists here are already categorized for their Africanness by other categories that already existed. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're wrong. Not all of the artists listed here are categorized by their ethnicity, and many are intersectional. This reflects bias and a misunderstanding of what this category is actually trying to establish and address. I'm sorry you don't understand this. It's not about a niche, it's about inclusion. Again, I'm sorry you are not understanding how this is a productive and helpful thing. It's not personal; however, it is a curation, and a beginning, as a way to add a category to include and not exclude people from a helpful classification. Also, the project is an outreach project that is supported by WMF, so by default it's not just about two editors. Again, I think this rigidity and WP:RULEZ approach only hurts the encyclopedia -- and inhibits editors like myself from using categories. I suspect I can't change your mind because you are not interested in a different viewpoint than your own. I wonder what I can do or say to make an impact here, and convince you this is not some Machiavellian approach to impinge on categorization on Wikipedia -- but actually an effort to use categories in a productive and helpful way. I am not seeing others support your view here, either. Please reconsider this CfD. BrillLyle (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category system's role is not to just let every user do anything they want without regard to any actual standards of what's appropriate or necessary or warranted. The category system has rules because it has to have rules: people routinely try to create categories for trivial characteristics that don't warrant categories (such as categorizing people by their blood type or eye colour); people routinely think that every single article that exists at all automatically gets its own eponymous category to contain it; people routinely try to do an incredible number of things that the category system simply should not be doing (even sometimes lapsing into total nonsense that serves no identifiable purpose at all, such as Category:Hail Eris! read A Drifting brain.) So no, the fact that "the rules inhibit editors from using categories" is not a valid argument against the having of rules for the category namespace — because "inhibiting" some of what editors try to create or use categories for is desirable and even necessary sometimes.
And just for the record, it's true that nobody else has commented here yet besides me and you — but that fact means that "I am not seeing others support your view here" is not in and of itself a reason why this should be withdrawn, because nobody else here is supporting your view yet either. CFD is sometimes a low-participation venue; not only is this not the only open CFD discussion that hasn't attracted any outside comment beyond a creator-nominator debate yet, at least as of the time I'm posting this comment it isn't even the only CFD discussion on this daylog where nobody else has voted one way or the other yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If a particular group of editors wish to create a list of articles that they are interested in they should create a list (not in mainspace) - not affect other editors/readers by adding extra complexity to the mainspace category structure. DexDor(talk) 20:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in mainspace - although it's clearly v useful as someone's to-do list.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:42, 8 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: A category for two people who are sufficiently linked through their own articles and articles like Second Lady of the United States is over categorization per WP:SMALLCAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It can always be recreated if more members of his family become notable. JDDJS (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there were a lot of notable Pences — his brothers and sisters, his parents, their kids, etc. — then this category would be justifiable, but we do not create one of these for every family that has just two people with their own Wikipedia articles. It's not something that all VPs of the United States automatically get because VP; it's a thing that some VPs of the United States get and some don't, depending on whether there are enough related articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two people are nowhere near enough on their own to warrant a distinct category. No prejudice against recreation if more family members later warrant their own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 1 March 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.
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: Do nothing, no consensus for deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, entirely isolated century/city intersection, the next century category in Jerusalem is the 17th. The content of this category is already in the tree of Category:1st-century Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - either deleting the entire Jerusalem by century or keeping it. Trying to delete specific centuries for some reason completely fails to understand Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, especially considering that Jerusalem by century can be easily populated back into 2nd millenium BCE. Here, just for example i added Category:11th century in Jerusalem to demonstrate my point.GreyShark (dibra) 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a single-item category just to make a point isn't really helpful, this doesn't aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have just filled the newly created category with two more articles. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since the category exists it ought better be populated to its maximum potential. I wish you had done that yourself, as the creator of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best results on Wikipedia are achieved through collaboration.GreyShark (dibra) 20:37, 5 March 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:Germany–Poland relations during World War II[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. – FayenaticLondon 13:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:downmerge, the scope of this category fully overlaps with its single child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 28 February 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.
