Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 26

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

September 26[edit]

Category:White 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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:ETHNICRACECAT and arbitrary category, Category:White people was recently deleted in this discussion. Prisencolin (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a rename or a merge may be more appropriate than plain deletion, see also this other discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. Category:White people is completely different. Most of the subcats of Category:White culture are perfectly OK and deserve a suitably named parent (eg nothing in Category:White culture in the United Kingdom appears to me to be miscategorised). Oculi (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While we have articles for culture of people of European extraction, we need this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This category is currently being misused as a substitute for the formerly deleted category "White people". For example, I fail to see how Category:European diaspora in Africa or articles about ethnic groups such as White Africans of European ancestry are related to "White culture in Africa" - which is, in itself, problematic - people of European descent on the African continent do not share any aspects of a single, universal culture continent-wide.
    Since there is no single or universal "white culture" (Nordic Scandinavians have nothing in common with blond Uyghurs or Kazakhs for instance), I would propose depending on subcategories like "White American culture" or "White South African culture" rather than making use of this unwieldy parent cat. Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes "white culture" seems to be based partly on a Westerncentric perspective and original research. --Katangais (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. The content of the category is a bit messy in the sense that definitely not everything is about culture. But everything in this category is about the "white" race. In fact I can quite well imagine, per previous comment, that we rename this to Category:White people (after we had previously deleted that category per WP:SMALLCAT). Note: deeper down in the category tree I see room for quite a few improvements, see these four follow-up nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There shouldn't be a category titled "White people", in my opinion, because it would inevitably be used or misused to classify individuals. I think it is useful to have a category for articles related to "white people" as a concept or social group, but it shouldn't be used for individuals. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are categories for Black British culture and Black Canadian culture and African-American culture. These are all classified together under a larger category of Culture of the African diaspora (no category exists for "Black culture", even though "African"/"African diaspora" is not an identical concept to "Black" - not all Africans and people of African descent are "Black", many are non-black North Africans or whites of European descent. In many North African countries, there are civil rights struggles being fought by self-identified "Black people" due to discrimination from non-Black Africans, usually Arabs and Berbers). "Black" may be a social construct and the definition of "blackness" may differ from society to society, but there is a concept of "Black people" and "Black culture" in multiple societies where dark-skinned people of African descent live. When you see groups and movements like Black Lives Matter UK and the UK Black Panthers, it's obvious that Black British people have been influenced by Black American political struggles, and it is understood that "Black Americans" and "Black British people" are in some sense part of a greater Black diaspora culture and struggle. So it makes sense to have a category for these disparate though related "Black" cultures. Likewise, among light-skinned people of European descent there is a concept of "White people" or "whiteness" or "White culture" that exists in multiple societies where people of European descent live. It also makes sense to have a category that groups together articles related to these disparate though related "white" cultures. The fact is that people who identify as "Black" or who identify as "White" do exist and they do have particular cultures and ideologies associated with them. Is the racist ideology of "white nationalism" a form of "white culture"? I would say yes. Because people who call themselves "white" invented it. And when that racist ideology can be found among self-identified "white" populations in Canada and the UK and South Africa and Argentina and elsewhere, doesn't it stand to reason that there is a socially meaningful concept of "whiteness" that is also global? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that "white culture" isn't a unified monolithic thing that's common to all Caucasian people; it's an impossibly broad, nebulous thing that means completely different things depending on what Caucasian-majority country, state/province or even individual town you go to. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I can see that there's a plausible basis for some category to group the topics that are grouped here — but this isn't its right name, because "white culture" is not a unified thing defined by Caucasianness per se, but a loose aggregation of several hundred distinct and non-identical and wildly divergent cultures defined by criteria other than whiteness per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 October 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:Films banned 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: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Noah (2014 film) was banned in Pakistan is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the film. We don't generally categorize films by what country/ies they are/were banned in. Note: There is already a List of films banned in Pakistan.DexDor (talk) 21:21, 26 September 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:Language isolate speakers[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. ℯxplicit 04:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a kind of mirror category of its parent Category:Language isolates, as it apparently aims to collect peoples speaking a language isolate. While "isolate" is a defining characteristic of a language, it is not a defining characteristic of the peoples speaking that language. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because interest in an ethnic group may stem from the language they speak and not just the language itself.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand this, could you rephrase? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for ethnic groups, not languages. If somebody were to place Danish people under a category:Germanic speakers, which in turn would be categorized as Indo-European speakers, I did it in the same manner.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false argument: we are talking about speakers of Basque and one other language and potential siblings. Danish and German are not isolates. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think this is useful means of parenting lanugage speakers. We would not usually categorise people by the language they speak, but by nationality/ethnicity. However, with some ethnic groups, the main way of identifying them will be by language, so that Basque speakers would be a valid category, but its parent would be speakers of European languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I never implied Danish and German are isolates.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely per RevelationDirect, don't see the categorization value a category such as this can have. Perhaps if it was renamed I would reconsider my !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:17, 12 October 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:Greater Vancouver school stubs[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 templates and delete category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles just aren't there. Small starting set of articles, and a large portion of those at start level or better, leaves few stubs. Propose removing these two categories. Upmerge templates to Category:British Columbia school stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:55, 26 September 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:Mayors of German cities[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, except the withdrawn Category:Mayors of Jena. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two mayors of cities. As always, every city does not automatically get one of these the moment one former mayor has an article to file in it -- we require at least four or five articles before filtering them from the state down to a city subcategory is warranted. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when that number of articles is reached, but they're not needed for just one or two. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, all of these are old cities that have many mayors, so there is clear potential for growth. —Kusma (t·c) 09:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for a dedicated mayors category is that a certain specific minimum number of articles already exists, not the number of articles that could theoretically exist. The categories can be recreated if and when more articles exist to be filed in them — but it's how many articles already exist, not how many might theoretically come to exist in the future, that determines if and when a category for them happens. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. The cities may indeed have had many mayors but not all would be notable, not all the notable ones have articles, and so the creation of these categories is premature. Oculi (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existing structure. Categories on wikipedia are (1) a hopeless mess and (2) a can of worms because each of us likes to structure categories according to the way our own brains work, and many folks get quite indignant when they spot that other folks' brains operate according to quite different structural patterns. But wikipedia has eye watering ambitions for its scope, and indeed if it does not grow it is likely to ossify, shrink and then die. Steady-state is not a normal characteristic of human constructs. So wiki-expansion is good, and you do not encourage people to translate or otherwise create further articles on mayors in small town Germany if you gloop them all into a few single buckets based on state frontiers as of September 2017. Apart from anything else a lot of the more interesting mayors did what they did centuries back when Germany's political structure was different and the modern states did not exist or existed with different frontiers. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is to classify and group articles that exist, not to serve as a motivator for the future creation of articles that don't exist yet. Categories can be recreated in the future if the number of articles to file in them increases, so the existence or non-existence of the category is irrelevant to the article creation process — in the mayors tree, we create or delete categories on the basis of how many articles already exist today, not how many articles might eventually exist at some indeterminate point in the future. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now (Except for Jena) No conceptual issue with these categories but they're not serving a navigational benefit today. We've deleted many similar categories for other countries. No objection to recreating any of them once they get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now -- If there were a list article that showed there were several notable mayors with whom the category needed to be populated, we might keep the odd one, but none have the minimum of 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors of Jena now has 6 articles owing to some recent translation work on my part. I support keeping all these categories but if the consensus is for merging, I would ask that Category:Mayors of Jena and any other categories which have since met the requirement be exempt from deletion. --Saforrest (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you crossed the threshold so I'm on board to keep Jena since it aids navigation now. I really appreciate your translation efforts.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've stricken Jena from the nomination list accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 7 October 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.

Christadelphians by nationality[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 Category:Christadelphians to Category:Christadelphianism; merge all the biography categories to Category:Christadelphians and to the national categories for Christians. – Fayenatic London 05:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it is a global denomination, but very small, and only the English/British categories are worth keeping apart. Note that Category:Christadelphians isn't a great merge target because it is the top category with articles about the denomination, therefore I've suggested Category:Christadelphian people instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size is an argument per WP:SMALLCAT. There is an exception mentioned in this guideline (when a single nominated category is part of a large overall accepted scheme) but the exception is not applicable here: the scheme is not large and the nomination is not about a part but about the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. If you had been nominating "the whole tree" then I would not have opposed your proposal. Mais oui! (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially you are in favor of the proposal but you want to have the British and English category merged as well? I would be fine with that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nearly correct. I would rephrase that as "not opposed" rather than "in favor", but you have the right gist. Mais oui! (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These alternative names work fine for me as well. The essential thing here is that we have a category with topic articles about the denomination and a subcategory with biographies of adherents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the alternative proposal above by Peterkingiron in every detail. Oculi (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative As outlined by Peterkingiron. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mais oui!'s !vote, although I think Peterkingiron's idea on renaming certain categories is a good one as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Christadelphians is not tagged currently, nor are the British and English subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:57, 16 October 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:Frankish colonisation[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 06:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Apart from the eponymous article, the other two articles aren't really about colonisation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. The German category from which this is derived has nine articles and I am happy to add those. BTW I'm puzzled that you don't think the other articles are related. As the main article says "The beginning of this colonisation and associated land appropriation came as the Merovingian king, Clovis I, defeated the Alemanni around 496 A. D. at the Battle of Zülpich." So both other articles were key to this phase of history". --Bermicourt (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories should be about something. While the battle may have been at the start of colonisation, the article about the battle is not about colonisation (i.e. it is not about how the Franks ruled in Alamanni territory). Similarly, of course feel free to translate the German articles, but they are about language, not about colonisation. It's not even clear from these German articles whether these linguistic particles are really originating from Frankish language. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's never likely to be more than about one article on Frankish colonisation, and, as Marcocapelle says, the only article in this category that is actually about Frankish colonisation is Frankish colonisation. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:44, 26 September 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:Women Surrealists[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:Women surrealist artists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the parent category is Category:Surrealist artists rather than "Surrealists", I feel that "artists" should be added here for concordance with the parent — but either way, MOS:CAPS requires decapping "surrealists" regardless of whether "artists" is added to the category name or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 26 September 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_September_26&oldid=1074282102"