Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 5

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

February 5[edit]

Category:Nobel laureates from West Bengal[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 ~ Rob13Talk 12:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per the closing suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_17#Category:Nobel_laureates_from_West_Bengal. For User:BrownHairedGirl, why did you chose to be so nit-picky? Only two three of these four are Indian and one both all of them are already in the proposed merge category. It's wasteful to go through this again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Koavf: My closing note was quite polite, so I am sorry to see the tone of your comment here, when a quick "oops! fixing my mistake" would have been better.
    Any way, replying in your tone: Why do you repeatedly choose to be too lazy to check whether the CFD action which you have proposed is in fact the action for which you have written a rationale? Please don't blame others for your neglect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I'm not going to argue about tone-policing--it's wasted effort. Your fear was obviously unfounded--had the category just been deleted, then the two relevant entries would still be in the category you claimed they should be in. So what was the point of your comment? A simple, "Whoops! I didn't notice that was I said was irrelevant" would suffice here as well. I've had many interactions with you at CfD where you claim that my proposals are somehow unintelligible or you feign ignorance and act coy about what is clearly the case. The consensus was to delete, the relevant categories would be populated, I don't see what the problem is other than excessive lawyering of rules toward what end...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Koavf: You aren't hearing me.
        My point is not all about lawyering. It is about avoiding miscategorisation.
        If merger is not needed because the two articles were already in the target category, then of course deletion would suffice. But your previous nomination didn't mention that important fact; you chose to mention only now. Please don't blame other editors for being unaware of facts which could considered crucial but chose not to mention when it mattered.
        And yes, you do have a repeated habit of failing to communicate simple but crucial facts about your CFD nominations. There's an easy remedy: take a few extra seconds to explain your proposed action, rather than assuming that other editors will replicate the research which you choose not to communicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: Had I known that you were going to be the one to close it, I definitely would have taken pains to be excessively detailed since you were worried about something which is irrelevant. Since you have a habit of willfully doing that, I will have to be ever vigilant that you may make a point of doing this in the future. The consensus was obviously delete (and with good reason) but you closed it as keep for some reason that escapes me. You were worried that the two relevant biographies wouldn't be in Category:Indian Nobel laureates. They are. So I'm still confused as to what exactly the problem is other than possibly pettiness or vindictive passive-aggression on your part. I've no doubt that you're a fine editor otherwise and maybe a very polite person on the whole but I also feel like you make it a point to go out of your way to be needlessly particular as some kind of punishment against what you perceive to be transgressions of the CfD process. I've seen this at /Speedy where I've suggested that "X" be renamed "Y" because the main article is named "Y" but it was contested because I didn't provide a link to "Y"... As though it's simply impossible to find the article oneself or even--God forbid--take my claim at face value. So again, here we go with what I certainly think is a punitive and pedantic waste of everyone's time (yours included). Finally, if your concern is about miscategorization, I'd like to point out that presently, the other biographical article actually is miscategorized as they are subcategories of Category:Indian Nobel laureates. Ronald Ross is not an Indian person or citizen, yet he's subcategorized that way now. As you may see from my edits above, all of the three relevant bios are in the proper category now but if we wait for this process to run, Ross' bio will actually be the one miscategorized. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Koavf: You are making a big mountain of some thing very very very very very very very very simple. So I will summarise it in very very simple terms.
            1. I have no view on whether to keep the category. As a closer, my job is to weigh whether there is a policy-based consensus for the action actually proposed, and in this case there was no consensus to remove all the articles from the Indian category.
            2. If a nomination does not provide a rationale which addresses the action actually specified, then I will close it as "keep". If it does provide a rationale which addresses that action, then I weigh the consensus. Simple, isn't it?.
            And if you think that time has been wasted, then I agree: it has been wasted because of your persistent unwillingness to communicate the necessary information which you already know. You can very easily fix that if you want to.
            As to CFD/S, it's the same problem of your attitude to other editors participating in the consensus-forming process, which appears to me to be show them little regard. When you make a C2D nomination, you must have have identified the head article (or else the nomination would be bogus), so it takes a few seconds for you to link the main article with the nomination. Then anyone who wants to check can open the article with a single click, and check that it is not a redirect and assess its stability at the current title. If you do not provide that link, it's a multi-step process for every editor who makes those checks. So whatever time you save by making an incomplete nomination imposes a burden of multiples of that time on every other editor involved in the consensus-forming process. Why do you choose to repeatedly make things difficult in that way? It would be v quick and easy for you to facilitate others rather than subject them to a guessing game.
            Thats' why I will continue to oppose any such speedy proposals from any editor ... tho you are the only editor who has regularly failed to do so, or objected when challenged.
            I have no intention of changing my approach, and if you don't like it, WP:ANI is thataway. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @BrownHairedGirl: "Why do you choose to repeatedly make things difficult in that way?" You'll note that I don't post Speedy CfDs like that anymore for precisely that reason. Feel free to be upset about it further if you want but I make it a point to not do that so I don't have to hear it from you anymore. I don't think you have been pleasant in my interactions with you, no matter how very very very very very very very very polite you think you are. If you want to continue being rude, off-putting, and condescending (although, admittedly in only a mild or sometimes back-handed way), then I'll continue dreading should you talk to me. The love-it-or-leave-it approach of ANI is also wasted effort--I never said you shouldn't be an admin or should be sanctioned or something like that. I said that I think you are needlessly petty toward me in particular (from what I've seen--this may be a consistent way that you approach things). Rules are fine and well and there are many times when it's necessary to follow a process to maintain fairness or safety. This is not one of those times. If I thought you were a bad editor or a bad admin or a bad person, then I would have pursued some different course of action a long time ago. I don't. I'm simply pointing out for your benefit and my ability to blow off some steam how your actions are perceived by someone else who has also been here a very long time and made many edits across many parts of the encyclopedia. I assume you feel the same way: if you thought I were doing something outright unacceptable, you could always put me up for some sanction. The fact that you don't gives me a tacit approval that you realize that I'm trying to make the encyclopedia better and on balance I do. For what it's worth, your justification rings hollow again to me: Ross wasn't Indian, so he shouldn't be in any "Indian [x]" category nor any subcategory of it. I don't know you and I have no beef with you--certainly, I'd prefer that an admin be too much a stickler than not enough, but too much anything is too much. In this case and considering all of the other times we've had back-and-forth, I can just tell that what you're going to write is going to be something that I will dislike. Not just because you will have an approach that I think is different than mine and certainly not because I think you are malicious but because comments like, "My closing note was quite polite, so I am sorry to see the tone of your comment here, when a quick 'oops! fixing my mistake' would have been better" are just smug and abrasive. Feel free to comment here, respond on my talk, email me, or if you're just over it, turn this into a collapsible section and move on to something else which I've no doubt will be a better use of your time and talents in making the encyclopedia a better place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Great. You fixed the prob with the speedies, so you can fix this problem too. That's all. Just fix the problem, and then I will neither need to leave a polite note when closing a CFD (as in the one I just closed[1]) nor have to choose to whether to respond to your complaints when you do fix the problem.
                As you say, you have been here a long time and you have many edits, so you will know that things need to be done in particular ways ... and long enough too to know that "this needs fixing" is not a personal attack. Please stop treating it as one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete – as the 2 Indian members are already in the merge target and the 2 non-Indians are not (and should not be) in the merge target, the effect is identical. Oculi (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merging. As the nominator stated in the previous CFD, not all members are Indians; and as I stated there, all members are already directly categorized in parent categories where this is appropriate. For the record, in case of future changes: Amartya Sen, Rabindranath Tagore and Mother Teresa are in Category:Indian Nobel laureates, while Ronald Ross is in Category:British Nobel laureates. IMHO there was sufficient consensus to close that discussion as delete, but the closer's labour on reducing the current backlog at CFD is appreciated, and I know from experience that such work does not always allow all the participants' arguments and claims to be checked when closing. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having Nobel laureatte categories below nationality level is just plain overcategorization. The fact that all 4 articles are already in appropriate nationality categories is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 20 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:Cambodian nationalism[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. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Khmer nationalism. Charles Essie (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while Khmer nationalism is a notable topic within Cambodian nationalism, it's not the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but we don't have an article for "Cambodian nationalism" and we do for "Khmer nationalism". Charles Essie (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisted from CFD 2017 January 20
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction to User:Charles Essie's question: I would recommend to keep the categories as part of an established tree by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of the general tree of nationalism by country. That said, it appears either some articles need to be removed, or have their articles expanded to explain that the subject is actually somehow a form of Cambodian nationalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 20 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:Missionaries by location[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 as "...by mission continent". – Fayenatic London 06:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: These are all categories by continent, and should be named as such. (Categories all tagged). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 5 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.

Category:Databases in Eurasia[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: upmerge according to the corrected nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection between databases and a geographical concept. The two continental subcategories should be sufficient to have. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete odd use of Eurasia; presumably, if databases have a physical location they are either in Europe or Asia not encountered willy-nilly across the whole swath; next we'll have Old World vs. New World databases.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Databases by continent. I agree that it's a bad idea to use Eurasia in this way, but deletion will chop Europe and Asia out of the continents category.
    @Marcocapelle, would you like to amend the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 13 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.

Category:Post-Soviet conflicts[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 (for conflicts) & delete (for revolutions). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, incomplete inclusion criteria since there is no objective end date to these categories. For how long are we going to categorize events between or in independent states in their predecessor tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep conflicts. Most of these arose out of the way that USSR broke up and the hegemony that Russia still seems to seek over other ex-Soviet countries. On the other hand, I am not sure that the revolutions cat is useful, as the countries were by then independent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep conflicts, as these are conflicts caused by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I am not certain what the revolution category covers. Every revolution in the last 26 years? Dimadick (talk) 09:12, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_5&oldid=1074283398"