Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23[edit]

Category:African-American members of the United States House of Representatives[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) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, to simplify category name; second, the list article is List of African-American United States Representatives; and lastly, a comparable and existing category is Category:African-American United States Senators. Mitchumch (talk) 22:25, 23 May 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:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in Pakistan[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 without prejudice to nominating the entire tree of expatriates from Northern Ireland (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT Greenbörg (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category lists anyone from Northern Ireland who is/was resident in Pakistan. Expatriate categories don't fall in the scope of WP:OVERCAT. They follow an established structure and category tree. Most wouldn't exist if that rationale was accepted. Mar4d (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too specific; and anyway the article does not even mention Pakistan. He was a British diplomat, so that the need for a narrow Irish category intersection is not needed. He would correctly be in people from Northern Ireland or a subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not an example of overcategorisation. WP:SMALLCAT states that small categories like this are acceptable if "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 28 May 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:Pakistani people of Anglo-Irish descent[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 without prejudice to nominating the entire tree of nationality by Anglo-Irish descent (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed WP:NARROWCAT. Greenbörg (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reason provided in the above CfD. The criteria wouldn't apply as the subject article verifies this definition. In this case, Jemima Goldsmith is a notable Pakistani citizen (and formerly resident) of British origin, of which the above is a subcategory. Mar4d (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Pakistani people of British descent -- This is too specific a triple intersection to require a special category. It is an unusual emigration, so that we cannot expect even my target to get well populated, let alone a small sub-ethnicity. Her mother was from an aristocratic family from Ulster and clearly Unionist in politics and British. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not an example of overcategorisation. WP:SMALLCAT states that small categories like this are acceptable if "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 28 May 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:NCAA Football Cover Players[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT - no encyclopedic value —swpbT 18:31, 23 May 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:Turkish drama television series in Arab World[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needs renaming and cleanup - are these series that take place in the Arab world? Or are made there? What exactly is meant by the Arab world? —swpbT 18:18, 23 May 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:Filipino people of Breton descent[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT —swpbT 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to equivalent French category. The article says she is half-French, and does not even mention Breton, which is not really a separate ethnicity today anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 23 May 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:Kashmiri Muslims[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: convert to container category. ℯxplicit 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Kashmiri people. Most Kashmiris are Muslims anyway. Mar4d (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kashmiri people are not Muslims anyway. This category is based on ethnicity as others are e.g. Category:Punjabi politicians. We are obliged to use Muslim category only if there is a notable source which establishes that he or she is Muslim. We can't add categories based on your saying 'anyway' which you are in habit of doing couple of times. You are in habit of creating of redundant WP:SMALLCAT categories, which I am going to review. Thanks Greenbörg (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenbörg: "Kashmiri people are not Muslims anyway" What? The majority of Kashmiris are Muslims. And no, this category is not based on ethnicity. Kashmiri Muslims are not an ethnicity, they are a religious sub-group within the Kashmiri ethnicity. A category already exists for that at Category:Kashmiri people which includes Muslim Kashmiris. We don't have any conventions on Wikipedia widely categorising people by religion in addition to ethnicity. So your category is an exception to the norm. My categories are based on the existing categorisation trees, and follow a structure that is already established. Yours' isn't, thus your comment is irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Religious ethnic groups are Jews, Sikhs but not Kashmiris. Jews are religious ethnic group because of Judaism and Sikhs because of Sikhism and there are some others. So, your point is not valid. Greenbörg (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate: Islam is a religion, Kashmiris are an ethnicity. "Kashmiri Muslims" is neither. It's a group of people of Kashmiri ethnicity who follow Islam. Given the majority of Kashmiris follow Islam, most people under Category:Kashmiri people fit this definition. We categorise people by religion and nationality, but I see no evidence of categories doubling religion + ethnicity (or that this is a convention). You have yet to prove me wrong. Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it into a container category. It doesn't make sense to put every Kashmiri Muslim in this category, but it does make sense to put those people in the category for whom their belief is defining according to some further subcategorization scheme (Islamists, religious leaders). Marcocapelle (talk)
That seems like a workable idea, and one that I would not oppose. Mar4d (talk) 08:34, 25 May 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:Infrastructure as Code[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated (two entries), one likely non-notable, little rationale for why this would be ever populated, seems spammy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 23 May 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:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior[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. ℯxplicit 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining (none of the articles characterizes its subject as an underlying principle) and subjective (who has the authority to determine what an underlying principle is). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 23 May 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:Marketing companies of China[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. ℯxplicit 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty except for a subcat, and not part of a large established tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 23 May 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:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus[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:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. There is an insufficient amount of support to merge or delete this category. ℯxplicit 23:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "by consensus" is galling. For many deleted usercategories, the deletion discussion was participated only by a very small group of editors, and usually stakeholders were not advised of the discussion. At best, the "consensus" was some form of qualified consensus, somewhere between a "CfD local consensus" and a "rough consensus".

One example of a "weak consensus", seriously close to a "dubious consensus" cf a "no consensus" is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/January_2008#Category:Fantastic_Wikipedia_editors. However, the point is that they are properly, according to procedures of the time, "delete". Let the category title reflect to simple important fact, without invoking a misuse of the spirit of WP:Consensus in using the word as a stick to beat or otherwise intimidate the many disagreeing Wikipedians.

A yet more concise version would be:

Just from the verbosity angle, I think this change is better. The current verbose version I feel even encourages long silly point making categories. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC) I prefer Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and prefer the second version. Shorter is better provided it doesn't create any ambiguity (and it doesn't, in this case). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - At least for your main reason given. I might be persuaded from the verbosity angle to some sort of rename. If you don't think a particular discussion represented consensus, you can take it to deletion review. Until then, it's deemed to represent consensus. I'm not sure if I like this system at all however. I might be inclined to support a deletion. I actually think maybe keeping these as redlinks is a better option than keeping them as hard redirects to this category, even if that results in a cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories. But that's a discussion for another day. VegaDark (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go with the verbosity angle if you wish ("Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages" has multiple advantages), but when it comes to the historical issue of collegiate consensus decision making, I maintain that most involved, including you, were on the wrong side. However, I do not suggest that you weren't doing what you thought was best; you were following standard practice, and in the end probably the right decisions were made most of the time. And several people in agreement did it, not just you. Given that, re-litigating at DRV would be extremely counter-productive, and probably immediately rejected as such. Still, asserting "deleted by consensus" implies all involved users with redlink categories (a very large number) are/were acting against consensus, which is a similarly non-productive line, and with evidence against. Categories should not pose arguments in their titles, that was the mistake that led to the proliferation of pointy usercategories.
    • I oppose deletion, because it appears a well-working solution, even if novel, even if unilaterally implemented by BHG. BHG deserves no criticism for finding a way forward out of a quagmire. Any serious proposal to delete should require a superior alternative working solution for the many recurrent redlinked usercategories. The cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories is not an argument for another day, it is a past argument, now solved, and this is cleaning a rough edge on the solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad that SmokeyJoe has started this discussion, thank you, because if he had not, I would have done so pretty soon myself. I'm going to suggest a more complex solution than the rename proposed here. The parent category for this category is Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. That one needs a rename discussion too, but I want to leave that discussion for another day. But the fundamental objective here is to create a way to handle these user categories without creating problems for other editors who work in category space. Please see Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. for a community discussion (and would an uninvolved admin please close the RfC already!). Two things need to be accomplished to solve those problems. First, the categories should not be red-links, because when they are, they mess up Special:WantedCategories. Second, they need to be quarantined in a container category. So it seems to me that the parent ("idiosyncratic") category takes care of the container need, and the existing system is keeping them all blue. We do not need this subcategory at all! So merge into Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians (and subsequently discuss a rename). And: all of the categories in this category have been made into hard redirects, as a consequence of the sausage-making that occurred as the discussions about these categories were going on. That's a bad thing, and it violates WP:CATRED – and it is no longer necessary. So they should all be changed back as part of the merge process. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think it is a good thing to categorise the categories that have failed an old CfD separate from categories that haven't, so I oppose the upmerge. There is something that initially feels not quite right about "Idiosyncratic", technically it is not correct as it means "of the individual", and many categories are multi-members, and in common parlance it is a euphemism for "weird". However, most if the categories in it are weird, and mostly more weird than the repopulated deleted categories. So I find "idiosyncratic" less offensive than the "by consensus" tag (Accusing a Wikipedian of violating "consensus" is a very serious accusation, and the RfC you link seriously undermines the 2007-8 CfD "consensuses", and reduces the accusation to a brawl). So, if "idiosyncratic" needs a re-wording, it should be in another place, and only with a specific proposed re-wording. Get the RfC closed first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LOCALCON is something that would seem to apply to a very large number of category deletion discussions. I distinctly remember a while back quite a few editors getting upset that user categories that were used by a very small number of editors were being deleted in discussions that involved an even smaller number of editors, none of whom ever notified the users using that cat. A great number of those categories which have been deleted "by consensus" would not find a consensus to delete them if the wider community were aware of the CfD. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the word "idiosyncratic" is something for another discussion, so let's not get side-tracked by it here. As for your opposition to an upmerge, I do not buy your reason. There really is no reason to divide the categories into two groups, unless there is a future plan to go after and sanction the editors who have the deleted ones (or waste time deleting the other ones). And I know that's the opposite of what you intend, because of your valid concern about the accusation of non-consensus. We just do not in any way need to subcategorize these things. They simply need to be contained. Containerize, and no hard redirects. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second option only Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, and only for reasons of brevity. To me there is an interesting nuance between "deleted categories" and "categories which have been deleted", and I support the former for stylistic reasons as well as concision. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I realize this isn't clear from my comment above. I like Tryptofish's solution, but this is a great intermediate step and the OP's rationale is a good one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine the different good suggestions: merge per User:Tryptofish and rename the merged category to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians have not been deleted, so that would be misleading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those comments. If we do in fact make that upmerge, it might be best, for starters, to simply retain the Idiosyncratic Wikipedians name, and then leave the rename discussion of that for the next discussion. This would have the benefits of (1) renaming the "deleted by consensus" wording that editors here seem to agree is a problem, (2) eliminating redundant categories, and (3) getting all of these categories into a single category and out of the rest of category space (and I want to repeat that the hard redirects should also be eliminated). That would be a lot of good progress, and it's surprisingly complicated to craft a rename for the entire thing, which might make for a second, separate discussion as a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually like Category:Redlinked user categories created to avoid cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories, but there was some consensus on both sides of the issue to requiring all categories with users in them to have some form of "Wikipedians" in them. So I would recommend Category:Wikipedians in redlinked user categories that were created to avoid cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories. That doesn't address the verbosity angle, however. I'll also re-add here that I'm not 100% on board with the concept of creating these categories for the sole purpose of making them not show up in Special:Wantedcategories, but can live with the solution for the time being. VegaDark (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedians in redlinked user categories that were created to avoid cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories? Some of those words would go better in the categories lede than in the title. That title would create a paradox, because the category turns the redlink blue, and also I don't think it is worded right. No one creates redlinked user categories to avoid cluttering of Special:Wantedcategories. I am 80% on board with keeping these categories to make things not show up in Special:Wantedcategories, and 20% on board with depopulating them with prejudice. I note the first option is already in place, and the second would have pesky notification requirements and may lead to resistance with user's who think they own their userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinked categories are redlinked because there's no cat page created for them. In order to add them to a category such as this, a cat page would need to be created on which to add the category. Hence, no categories in another category can be redlinked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting sanctions, I'm stating information that should be very relevant to any discussion about what to do with this category. Should categories made to make a point (which continue to have the effect long after they're made) be kept? I don't think so. But since this cat serves another purpose as well, and it's the name that makes the point, the best solution is to change the name, if only to comply with WP:POINT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the RfC about the subcategories of these categories has been closed as "no consensus". So that's not going to help much here, one way or the other. Assuming that we do the upmerge, I'll put forward another idea that occurred to me as a replacement for "Idiosyncratic": Category:Wikipedians with miscellaneous user categories. That's about as neutral as one can get, of course. In other situations, I would prefer something more informative, but here I think that's OK, because it's going to be a quarantine category and won't affect any other categories. And it's not verbose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we need to make it clear just how evil these editors are, and how the community suffers them at best. /s Laurdecl talk 11:09, 8 June 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_May_23&oldid=1136462431"