Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:8th-century Sasanian monarchs[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Sasanid empire was destroyed in 651. There are no monarchs after that date. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes no sense to have this when the Sasanian Empire fell in 651. User who created this category keeps adding Sasanian monarchs categories to post-651 exiled Sasanian princes as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Sasanian dynasty was not over in 651. Peroz III served as "head of the Governorate of Iran, an exiled extension of the Sassanid court.", and successors are mentioned until 710. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't monarchs though, they were exiled princes at best. They didn't rule anything. There's always gonna be a bunch of royals who try to restore the rule of their fallen dynasty, doesn't make them a monarch though. There is a reason Yazdegerd III is called the last Sasanian king [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2019 (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:Miyazaki, Miyazaki[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Miyazaki (city), which was moved to its present title 4 months ago. This is a contested speedy (pinging User:Feminist and User:Armbrust). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2019 (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:Retired YouTubers[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) 05:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary cat, not defining. Störm (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2019 (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:Insurgents[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: soft merge and remove the subcat from the hierarchy. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category. No obvious difference between insurgents and the much better populated category of rebels. Insurgents seem generally to be armed rebels, but most of the existing categorised rebels were armed. Rathfelder (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category is currently part of Category:Insurgencies, alongside e.g. Category:Insurgent groups. The article Insurgency gives a definition, "An insurgency is a rebellion against authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents (lawful combatants)"; this seems sufficient to make a WP:Defining distinction. If we are keeping Category:Insurgencies within Category:Rebellions by type, then it seems appropriate to keep Category:Insurgents within Category:Rebels by type. In other words, I would only support this merge if the whole tree was being merged; and I do not think there are sufficient grounds to do so. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the definition of an insurgency distinguishes it from a rebellion. Not all rebellions are violent, but most of them are, and most of the many articles about rebels are about people who used violence. Unless we are going to recategorise them all as insurgents this categorisation is misleading. Rebel is the term commonly used. Rathfelder (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: To me the distinction is not very clear either. Can you give some examples of rebels who are/were not insurgents? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says in terms "An insurgency is a rebellion against authority". It goes on to distinguish insurgencies from non-violent rebellions. So all insurgents are rebels. Our categories at present do not make this clear. The vast majority of people categorised as rebels were violent, or at least were prepared to be violent. But their violent rebellions are not categorised as insurgencies. There are only 6 individuals characterised as insurgents. 2 are also categorised as rebels. One does not appear to be a rebel at all. Other people involved in the same rebellions are categorised as rebels. The rebellions in which they were involved are not described or categorised as insurgencies.Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All insurgents are rebels, but not all rebels are insurgents. If none at all of the current contents are members of groups categorised in Category:Insurgent groups, or otherwise demonstrably worth categorising as insurgents, I would not oppose a merger as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. without prejudice to re-creating it if articles are created for notable members of insurgent groups.
For the record, the current members of the category are:
If this is not relisted, then at least one sub-cat is called "insurgents" and three member pages are currently described in their lead paragraph as insurgents. For these at least, being insurgent seems WP:DEFINING. Those amount to sufficient content to keep the category. I would not object to a purge by re-categorising some of the other contents into more appropriate categories. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Islamist insurgents includes some big categories, but the word insurgent seems to be used in a different sense in that context. I think it could survive without this as a parent. What I don't like is a category which appears to be saying these 5 (Because I don't think North qualifies at all) are in some way to be distinguished from all the other rebels. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: If relisted including the subcategory, would you then propose renaming the subcategory from insurgents to rebels? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​ Looking at the contents, I don't think that "rebels" would be appropriate. It contains biographies of Islamists who have been designated as terrorists by various authorities. It seems to me that the "Islamist insurgents" category belongs in the terrorism hierarchy (where it is) and should be renamed accordingly, perhaps as "Islamists designated as terrorists."
    • OK, as that sub-category should be renamed, then I withdraw my opposition to renaming the parent nominated here, as WP:SOFTDELETE. It does not appear to contain members of Category:Insurgent groups after all, and has too few WP:DEFINING insurgents to be kept separate from rebels. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 6 February 2019 (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:Former Sri Lankan Roman Catholics[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. ~ Rob13Talk 04:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only other article that I came across that could possibly fit in this category is Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero, however according to the article his family left Catholicism when he was only a few months old meaning he never formally practiced the religion, as well as the fact that the text mentioning this is unsourced and was removed a short while ago. Catholics make a small part of Sri Lanka's population so it is unlikely there would be many more articles to populate this category. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter refers to the target, so that would be a different nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2019 (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:Real Madrid presidents[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: Renamed to Category:Real Madrid CF presidents. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The list is located in List_of_Real_Madrid_CF_presidents (moved per the RM result of the main article Real_Madrid_CF.) The cat is the only outlier that without "CF": Real Madrid C.F. players (will move to CF version per C2D), Real Madrid C.F. managers (ditto), Real Madrid C.F. non-playing staff (ditto). Without "CF" in Real Madrid Baloncesto players, because the main article is located in Real Madrid Baloncesto, for the basketball section Matthew hk (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew hk (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. I nominated the other subcats at CFDS[2], but omitted this one because I wasn't sure whethet it realted only to the football club. Meant to go back and check, but forgot.
Since the nom shows that this is only for the football section, then it qualifies under C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Real Madrid CF is the main article for the multi-sport club and the football section. Technically they are the presidents for Real Madrid Baloncesto too. But since the list was located in the article title with CF suffix, so may be the cat should follow the convention too. Matthew hk (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. GiantSnowman 09:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree makes sense per other moves that have happened and keeps the naming convention in the same pattern. Govvy (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per content of the category, request close --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2019 (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:US officers of Georgian 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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS. I see no indication that "US military officers of Georgian descent" is a valid encyclopedic topic, and there are no other categories of US military officers by descent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sub categories have structural purpose. I don't see any reason to remove them. Merging at best.
PS: They all serve to expand on the list of Georgians, in this case American people of Georgian (country) descent TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What do you mean by structural purpose?
  2. The reason to remove them is the long-standing guidance against irrelevant intersections, at WP:OCEGRS.
  3. Categories and lists are separate devices. A category does not "expand on" a list, or vice versa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No need to merge: all the pages in these categories are already in Category:American people of Georgian (country) descent, because when you populated the categories you added your newly-created category without removing Category:American people of Georgian (country) descent.
The crucial issue here is WP:OCEGRS. Do you have evidence that an encyclopedic head article could be written on the topic of "US military officers of Georgian descent"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It are sub categories specificaly for people of military occupation, from the country of Georgia and of Georgian descend Category:Military commanders from Georgia (country). Among those happen to be people who served in the US. To maintain a structure and overview, those two were created. I don't see that as redundant.
  2. The category Category:American people of Georgian (country) descent is broad and encompasses everything. The sub categories are more specific and an extension of aforementioned categories. One doesn't make the other redundant. That's rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor BrownHairedGirl:. I explained my rationale several times now and my reason for better structure and technicality has nothing to do with personal perferences. Please do take the time to read WP:ILIKEIT. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor BrownHairedGirl: Your rationale is not founded in categorisation policy or guideline, and specifically flouts WP:OCEGRS. WP:IKEIT specifically refers to "this section covers deletion arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or gudelines", which is exactly what you are arguing here. You have personal interest in the intersection between Georgia and the US military, but since you have no policy- or guideline basis, your position is pure ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor BrownHairedGirl: Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what the term "bias" means, because my rationale has nothing to do with that. My position is as far off from WP:ILIKEIT as it can be. Please take your time to educate yourself on the terms you use, such as Bias. I already stated my reason, rationale and position on this. I don't see further need to discuss this. If it's decided to be deleted, than it is so. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheMightyGeneral: you have offered no policy- or guideline-based reason. That's how WP:ILIKEIT is defined.
And some day, I do hope that you find the maturity to refrain from personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor BrownHairedGirl: But you are wrong, and also WP:OCEGRS was never up to debate. I stated my reason regardless, which is everyone's right and that is not up to debate either. What you're doing right now has zero value. I have in no way attacked your person. Such accusation requires evidence and you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, as with aforementioned terms, due to poor application. Please, take your own advice to heart, admin or not, and before everything else, refrain from making baseless accusations about other editors. Same with insults and derogatory comments. All it does is building resentment and hostility. Have a nice day. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • take your time to educate yourself is a personal attack. As above, I do hope that you find the maturity to refrain from personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor BrownHairedGirl: I am sorry you feel that way, but no, it's not, and I think I would know a thing or two about that. What you are doing however, making assumptions about a person's maturity, could very well be perceived as such by others. Not to mention false accusation is inapropriate and against the guidelines. Once again, you'd be well advised to read WP:NPA and refrain from that, as it's no way constructive. Same with wrong application of terms. That is an observation and constructive criticism, not a "personal attack". TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2019 (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/2019_January_13&oldid=1073192059"