Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 23

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

February 23[edit]

Category:Institute of Industrial Engineers[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) 08:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per nom Virtually empty category, unlikely to be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2018 (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:American military personnel of Armenian 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: the opposers did not advance any rationale founded in the guideline WP:OCEGRS, so manually merge to a) Category:American military personnel or one of its subcategories; b) Category:American people of fooish descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American military personnel of Italian descent to Category:American people of Italian descent.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS, this represents overcategorization by a non-notable intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation. Armenians and Italians, unlike other groups with distinct categories like African-Americans, have no distinct history of being excluded from military service or discrimination in the US military. TM 23:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of manually sorting these categories and removing categories which are non-defining to the biography, i.e. a pro athlete who also spent a couple of years in the military but is notable for his sports career, not his stint in the military. Once that is complete, it won't be necessary to upmerge them to American military personnel.--TM 16:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general we categorise everyone who has served in the military in military categories, whether it's relevant to the career for which they're primarily known or not. Always have done. Military service is generally pretty defining to people, even if it was only relatively brief. So I would urge you not to remove them from these categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COP#N, "Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized." If someone is notable for being a professional athlete but also served in the military, they should not be categorized for their military service. If their military service is at all relevant, I have not removed the category. Whether it was an important life event for the individual or not is not relevant to Wikipedia, nor does it make it defining based on our guidelines. If you can show me the guideline where it says military service is inherently defining and should always be categorized, I will gladly undo my edits.--TM 17:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just common sense as far as I can see. Of course military service is defining. I suggest you desist your edits if you don't want them all reverted, because I suspect they all will be. I'll certainly continue to add anyone who has military service to the appropriate categories and I suspect many others will too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to engage the community and redefine military service as always defining, please build consensus for that. Otherwise, threatening an edit war when clearly the guidelines support my actions is totally inappropriate.--TM 13:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "threatening an edit war" in any way. I'm merely pointing out the reality of what will without a doubt continue to happen and suggesting you take that into consideration before trying to mould Wikipedia in your own vision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is useful category for researchers. Also, people can be notable for multiple reasons, and not just one. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful is not a reason for keeping a category. If someone is notable for their military history or their Armenian or Italian ancestry, they'll still be in those categories. However, having a certain ancestry and profession is not necessarily a notable intersection.--TM 01:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, for example, if a researcher would like to know how many Italian Americans served in the military in World War II while fighting against there own ancestral country. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose as useful as the categories of when an individual was born or when the individual dies. While those years might not make the subject notable, they are good for categorization. If the subject of an article was/is a service member, that should be a categorization. As what is being proposed here has wide impact when considering all the other categorizations of military service.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, given that, should we also create, for example, Category:American plumbers of Azerbaijani descent? Ridiculous overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Researchers involved with ethnicity and military service is perhaps different than occupations such as plumbing. Intersections of regional conflicts, ethnicity, composition of a military force is of interest to researchers. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it may or may not be useful or interesting to any particular person or group is not the guideline we use for categories on Wikipedia. I've already cited above some of the relevant guidelines. Please read them over.--TM 12:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation above provides the reasons "usefulness" is the basis of a valid argument for inclusion per WP:USEFUL. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge each article to the appropriate parent category/ies. Military service shouldn't be an exception to COP#N (if it was then we'd have people arguing that for example firefighters should also be an exception). DexDor (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2018 (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:Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering[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) 08:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one, eponymous, article. No obvious expectation of more. Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per nom Virtually empty category, unlikely to be expanded. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2018 (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:Chapels in Żurrieq[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: likewise for this anomalous category, for Malta. - Adam37 Talk 14:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Adam37: Do you intend to nominate Category:Chapels in Malta as well? Then please tag this category too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I mention Malta as that is the country of "Zurrieq", a highly, very highly Catholic country as to Christian denomination; there are no protestant sub-churches (chapels).- Adam37 Talk 18:16, 25 February 2018 (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:Chapels in Madrid[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: likewise - Adam37 Talk 14:30, 23 February 2018 (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:Chapels in Paris[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category it contains is contained within the parent category. There are no pages here as there are no non-Catholic chapels (certainly of any note) in Paris. - Adam37 Talk 14:29, 23 February 2018 (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.

Years and decades in Italy (1000-1859)[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 and no merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example
The full list of nominated categories can be found here.
Nominator's rationale: dual merge, on the one hand per WP:SMALLCAT, which applies especially to the categories of the earlier centuries, and on the other hand to reduce anachronism issues because Italy did not exist as a country until 1860. The nomination actually consists of two steps:
  1. Manually merge every article in the nominated categories to a century category of the contemporary (medieval, early modern) polity that the article refers to, if possible. Only if no century category of a contemporary polity exists in which the article would fit, then merge directly to a century in Italy category. For example, in the 11th century in southern Italy there weren't clearly established states yet, because of continuous wars between Lombards, Normans and Arabs in that region, so then an article about those wars would go directly into Category:11th century in Italy. But overall I would expect this to be quite exceptional.
  2. Then merge by bot to years in Europe, as listed.
This is obviously a huge nomination, not only in numbers of categories, but also in implementation. However this nomination is probably needed before renominating years and decades in the contemporary Italian states - see this previous nomination which is currently on hold. When the current discussion is closed as merge we can renominate those categories for merger to years in decades in Europe directly, because years and decades in Italy no longer exist. If appreciated, I'm willing to do the manual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Italy was not a state before 1860, but things in Italy before 1860 are very often grouped as if they were one state / region. Art from the region is described as "Italian art" (with subgroups like "Sienese painters" or "Venetian artists" of course), and many, many books group e.g. the politics of the region together as "Italian politics" as well[1] (see e.g. books like "Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia"). Removing the reference to "Italy" from the categories because in a literal sense only Italy didn't exist (even though it was a recognisable territory for the people then, and a common historical grouping for the people now) seems like a clear loss of information and usefulness for our readers, while the actual gain of this seems non-existant. Fram (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you accept Category:15th century in Italy, then your nomination statement falls flat on its face, as that one also violates the reason "reduce anachronism issues because Italy did not exist as a country until 1860." Fram (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went offline to write my oppose (below), got interrupted for a few hours, and saw @Fram's comments only when I came back to post mine.
So I just wanted to add my support to Fram's remarks, esp about the way in which the area is routinely described as "Italy" in the historical scholarship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. There may be some scope for upmerging smallcats, but the nomination is inadvertently a bit misleading to open with WP:SMALLCAT, because afaics this is essentially about abolishing Italy pre-1870.
Italy existed long before it became a unified state in 1870. It has been a well-defined geographical area for 2 millennia, with only small variations to the east and west of the Alps. As such it provides a much better basis for historical categorisation than the kaleidescope of small and frequently changing states which occupied the territory for 15 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. (Yes, some of the bigger states were more stable, but others were not, especially in the north)
By all means keep the cats for the smaller states, and maybe remove the early year cats ... but don't abolish Italy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS I should have acknowledged the nominator's exemplary care in making this nomination, with everything v clearly listed and explained. It's a model of a well-formed CfD.
A lot of work went into it, and I regret that I can't support the product of such diligence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Italy is a well-defined geographic penninsula of Europe, bounded by the Alps and the sea. Certainly, it was politically fragmented until the Risorgimento, but it was a recognisable division of Europe. Europe is too large an area for merging to it to be satisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per above but... any categories with fewer than, say, three articles would probably be better merged into Category:Year X in Europe and Category:Decade X in Italy. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main topic here is not Italy as a state, but the Italian Peninsula, which has a long history. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above: Italian Peninsula, well-defined geographical area; Europe to large area. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Only states should have "by year" categories. Only states can establish things. Fuzzier, looser associations should not be categorised by year as that would be excessive. A "by century" or, at most, "by decade" categorisation should apply to things that are essentially related to geographic land forms like the Italian peninsula or the island of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Only states can establish things"? Most things in these categories were not established by any state, whether it is some city-state or not. They are establishments "in" some geograhic location, not "by" some political entity. Fram (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peninsular Italy is a geographical land form. Apart from volcanoes, it established nothing. In modern times, there is no need to distinguish "in" and "by" for establishments as the two usually co-exist; in the remote past, a distinction must be made to avoid anachronisms and ahistorical associations. The various political institutions in the Italian peninsula in that period established things. They already have their own "by year" tree structures. The peninsula doesn't need one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • But these categories (whether about the Middle Ages or about 2018) are not about "things established by various political institutions" at all! They are about everything that has been established (companies, sports clubs, monasteries, ...) in a certain region (where, for convenience, we usually take a country or a state in modern times), not things established by that country or state. Fram (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do not, or ought not to, have categories for things that were established "by" or "in" certain regions or other geographic land forms. We have no categories for "Establishments in the Himalaya", "Establishments in the Nile delta" or "Establishments on the banks of the Danube". Same applies to peninsulas. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Strange, you support upmerging to "in Europe" categories. What is "in Europe" but a geographic land form? The "history of Italy" (pre-unification) is a typical grouping, the myriad of city-states, republics, ... is often taken together in this way. The same applies much less to your other examples. Fram (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually the categories of Europe and Asia in the remote past have come up for discussion recently in CFD. I think that the outcome was that there was really no such thing as Asia or Europe back in 1004. The concepts were much more fluid back then. So it might be worthwhile revisiting the "by continent" categories. Thank you for pointing this out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - using the term Italy prior to 1859 is anachronistic. There might have been Italy in geographic sense of course, but establishments is grouped by states.GreyShark (dibra) 14:06, 16 March 2018 (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:The Prince and Me films[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct name as per the posters. snapsnap (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename per nom To match the name of the articles. However, this seems to be a very small category, with only 4 articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2018 (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/2018_February_23&oldid=970825295"