Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Category:Thai male triple jumpers[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) 08:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this one because it is new, but there are many other countries with similar SMALLCATs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sports are one of those areas where gender-based subcategorization is accepted, because men and women compete almost entirely in separate gender-specific competitions rather than directly against each other in a gender-neutral context. Accordingly, "nationality + gender sportspeople" is an overall, accepted subcategorization scheme, which is an exception that SMALLCAT explicitly allows for right in its own description of what it means. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 28 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:Sports venues in State of Jefferson region[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) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SYNTH violation. None of these articles mention Jefferson (proposed Pacific state). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should stay The State of Jefferson is the name for the region of Northern California and Southern Oregon that is represented by this group. The State of Jefferson is not only a proposed state but also a name used throughout the region just to refer to the area that is distinctly different than the other parts of California and Oregon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecondor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and besides there is not even an article State of Jefferson region or a Category:State of Jefferson region. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per Marcocapelle. This is a transparent ruse to promote the so-called "State of Jefferson", and as such has no place on Wikipedia. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If this category consisted of sports venues trying to represent sports in a disputed jurisdiction, then it would be defining but that is not the case. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There have been three different failed efforts to create a state by that name: Jefferson Territory, Jefferson (proposed Southern state), and Jefferson (proposed Pacific state). We don't categorize buildings by states which have never existed. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sports venues are subcategorized by existing state, and/or city or county within that state, not by proposed state. If Jefferson ever actually comes into existence as a real state, then things in it will get recategorized accordingly at a different naming format than this — but the existence of an unrealized state proposal is not a defining basis for geographic subcategorization of things in that region as of today. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At least half of the items in the category are not even venues, they are sports teams. A draft article has even been listed in there although I'm not sure how that was managed. An article I created Challenge of the Champions an historic matchup between iconic bull and bull rider is not a venue but a series of seven bull riding matches, one of which happened to take place in the territory mentioned. Also, support per nom. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There have been two proposed States of Jefferson just in northern California/Oregon in the last few decades. They are not coterminous, and so there is no easy way to have a category such as this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion due to the fact that although Mr. Jefferson has many counties named in his honor, but no state. Not even a definitely defined proposed state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 15 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:Standardized tests for Medicine[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:Standardized tests for Medicine to Category:Standardized tests in healthcare education. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Title is ambiguous. These are tests for doctors, not patients, and the category can be widened a little to include similar tests for other clinicians Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. RevelationDirect (talk)
This cat is currently a subcat of Category:Medical education. If it's renamed then should that change? DexDor (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We havent got a superior category of clinical education, and frankly there wouldnt be much to put in it, but perhaps we need it.Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alt Rename/Support to Category:Standardized tests in healthcare education as the most naturally worded one. All of the suggestions here are better than the current ambiguous name so I support any other suggestion that approaches consensus.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with Category:Standardized tests in healthcare education. Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 2 March 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:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants[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) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, created without discussion, appears highly controversial and in itself politically and racially biased. In addition, there is a real danger of the contents coming to include crimes that are rumoured, or reported in unreliable sources, to have been carried out by illegal immigrants when in fact they may not be. Deb (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People of all races immigrate illegally. It is a legitimate legal status, and, therefore, a legitimate addition to Category:Criminal activities by perpetrator and Category:Illegal immigration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I often create articles about notable crimes. Deb often argues to delete them at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you double-check, you'll find that this is not the case. It's true we often disagree about deletions, but I'm not aware of having argued for the deletion of any articles you have created. Deb (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote,or meant to write, is that you often argue to delete notable crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dalete - This comes at a partisan time when politicians have broadly accused illegal immigrants -- many of whom are working in the U.S. and have overstayed their Visas -- of committing crimes without showing the evidence. Thus, this issue at this politically charged time is controversial, political and can appear, at face value, to be racially biased, which is not what Wikipedia is about. My suggestion is Delete. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crimes can already be well categorized by type of crime, by country and by year (and those categories fit well into the larger category structure such as events by year). Thus categorizing by immigration status of the perpetrator is unnecessary and can not be a complete categorisation scheme (as some crimes may not have been solved, may have been committed by several perps etc). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_18#Category:Crimes_related_to_the_European_migrant_crisis. DexDor (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV category. I second DexDor's opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete legal status of perp is not really part of any logical category tree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While we might not like the POV, that is not policy. What is relevant is whether the category is discusssed by sources. It is quite clear that crimes by illegal immigrants are discussed by sources and are part of a much wider immigration debate.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existance of this category is a violation of the requirement that Wikipedia take an impartial tone. Creating a category and populating it with articles about crimes committed by illegal immigrants creates a skewed and partisan impression of the relationship between Immigration and crime. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are we going to have categories for crimes committed by indigenous people, legal immigrants, children of immigrants, .... to go with this? Quite apart from any other consideration the determination of a person's immigration status in most jurisdictions is quite complex. In many of these articles the immigration status of the alleged perpetrator (most have not been convicted), is suppositious. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is better than that. Editors have reliably sourced the fact of illegal status in these articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In at least one case, there hasn't even been a trial yet.Deb (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of categories job is to enable people to locate information on significant topics. It is a fact that illegal immigration is among the most significant topics of public conversation in much of the world, at least, in much of what used to be called the free world: India, South Africa, Europe, and the U.S. are among the countries with large inflows of illegal immigrants. Our obligation is not to decide whether this is a good conversation to be having. Our obligation is to make certain that the information we provide on significant [political topics is accurate and that it is linked in a way that makes it possible for people to find it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unrelated intersection. All sorts of people commit crimes, there is no reason to isolate illegal immigrants among them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unrelated intersection, per Marcocapelle. (a) there was a crime; (b) the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It doesn't follow that the 2 facts are related. Oculi (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument really is that media attention and illegal immigration are related, rather than crime and illegal immigration. We can't categorize by anything that media have disproportionate attention for (that would require us to have a measure of disproportionality, leading to all sorts of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issues). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia already has comprehensive content about the relationship between illegal immigrants and crime (in both the Immigration and crime and Illegal immigration to the United States articles. We don't need the equivalent of Breitbart News's "black crime" category, which served the sole purpose of clustering together content about the evils of black people for an audience that got a thrill out of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the immigration status of these perpetrators is generally provided by police sources and the perpetrator was in no position to challenge it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to limit the category to cases that have been adjudicated?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these examples the perpetrators had a common motive for their crimes, and/or cooperated with each other in order to commit their crimes, so there is a connection between the perpetrators with respect to their crimes. That is not the case with illegal immigrants. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the other subcats of Category:Criminal activities by perpetrator are actually categorizing by the organization that committed the crime. Category:Criminals by nationality is categorizing people (not events). DexDor (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Illegal immigration -- I generally prefer to use the term "non-legal immigration" -- is a hugely vexing issue, primarily because it has become so polarized. People on both sides have staked out extreme, simplistic positions, with some trying to turn it into a complete "non-issue" and others blowing it out of all proportion, in particular by fear/hate-mongering about terrible crimes that have been committed by illegal/non-legal immigrants.
And make no mistake, these are terrible crimes. The killing of police officer Ronil Singh -- a Fijian immigrant to California -- struck very close to home, as a good friend of ours was his teacher at community college. The alleged killer was an illegal immigrant, as were several of his friends who have been charged as accomplices for trying to help him escape to Mexico. At the same time, it's also the case that this murder was seized on and shamelessly exploited by Donald Trump to get support for his border wall. (The same way the (accidental) shooting of Kate Steinle was exploited by Trump and a host of other people.)
In short, regardless of how one feels about this whole subject, the fact remains that it receives a great deal of attention from the media and the public at large. Which leaves us with the question of What is the proper way to deal with it on Wikipedia? It can't and shouldn't be hidden away -- but it also shouldn't be given excessive prominence. After racking my brain for a more acceptable category name -- one that would have any real likelihood of gaining support here -- I have reluctantly given up, in favor of a different solution. (see below, shortly) Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Proposal: Instead of a Category, which would always remain problematic even if renamed -- convert to a comprehensive List of crimes committed by non-legal immigrants (with links to all of the relevant articles), which can (and should) be broken down by country (where the crime occurred, not nationality of perpetrator). A brief summary can be provided for each article listed, and the List can then be linked thru the See also section of each article. This would be more useful at the same time as avoiding the kinds of issues raised by a Category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not in any way be a tad closer to WP:NPOV. Place Clichy (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator's rationale is not particularly convincing: "itself politically and racially biased". Nothing in the category mentions the racial backgrounds of either victims or perpetrators, and we are not supposed to sanitize crime-related articles to fit anyone's political agenda. If the sources support an article belonging in this category, it should be added. If the perperator is unknown, disputed, etc, then the article should be removed. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That the sources in articles would support a category is a necessary condition for a category to exist, but doesn't mean the category is necessary. DexDor (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and SYNTH. Sjö (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A person's immigration status is less arbitrary than might be imagined, making this more subjective than it might seem, and is in any case fiercely prejudicial. I also wonder if it's U.S.-centric? SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usually not a defining category of the crime itself, which leaves this category open to POV. Agathoclea (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except tat the illegal status of these criminals is a matter of verifiable fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through the 'Crime' Category, we currently have, "Crimes against women, (but not men!), Crimes against Law enforcement, War crimes, Crimes involving Satanism, Crimes in religion, Political crimes, police brutality, crimes against banks, children (but not the elderly!) and humanity. I'd say any of these would fall under POV. I don't see how we can maintain that it's not POV to have a category for crimes against women (but not men), and also argue that crimes committed by illegal immigrants would be POV. We seem pretty comfortable with a lot of POV categories here, when the status of the victim is considered to be significant. No difference here. Personally, I think the entire category should restrict itself to factual categories, what types of crime was committed. All the rest is POV and really shouldn't be in here. Yes, that includes 'war crimes'. I'm going to say keep here, because it touches on a controversial issue. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a person overstays his tourist visa by one day, and during that day drives drunk and kills someone, is this a valid category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not defining. I dont think any of the articles suggest a link between the crime and the person's immigration status. Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue. In fact, several (Killing of Ronil Singh) are about criminals who were not on immigration holds for deportation, but would have been except for the fact that they were living in sanctuary cities, or about criminals (Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman,) currently on immigration holds for deportation. One (Murder of Eliud Montoya) is about a murder by illegal immigrants, who ran a business staffed by illegal immigrants, and hired another illegal immigrants to murder a citizen who had evidence that they were running a business that exploited illegal immigrants. Others are about cases (2012 Paros beating and rape, Shooting of Kate Steinle, Palagonia double homicide,) where the illegal migrant status of the suspect became a focus of national political attention. But in every case, the illegal status of the suspected or convicted criminal is a or the aspect that made these crimes notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article titled "Killing of..." is not about a criminal; it's about an event. The defining characteristics of the event include its type, location and year.  The immigration status of a person may be a defining characteristic of that person, but that doesn't make it a defining characteristic of an event they are involved in (as perpetrator, victim or whatever). DexDor (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Wikipedia doesn't need a category that exists as a dogwhistle for xenophobes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plainly this category is grinding an axe, is furthering a political agenda, is infecting the encyclopedia that anyone can edit with hyperbole. Chisme (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not a well defined category and is actually a characteristic of the perpetrator instead of the crime itself. Since characteristic of a perpetrator are actually characteristics of people, there could be numerous such category combinations.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:12, 17 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:Hijabophobia[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: selective merge. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm afraid I see issues with the application of this category. PPEMES (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unquestionably, this category will be difficult, if not impossible, to apply. Deb (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge (not by bot), then delete, note that not all articles in this category are about female dress. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge per Marcocapelle. It looks to me like the articles are already in the appropriate pertinent categories for Anti-Musliml hate crimes, etc. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge per Marcocapelle. Place Clichy (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the categorisation is problematic. The term can apply to laws, events and many such stuff and is also subject to POV/Opinion. Kashf-e hijab for example is not Hijabophobia. In fact Hijabophobia is generally used in context of Islamophobia. I suggest re-categorising the articles instead.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:19, 15 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:Christian feminists[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) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge for more clarity, the category is apparently meant to collect those who are involved in Christian feminism but because of the current category's name it also attracts biographies of feminists who coincidentally happen to be Christian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sensible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite right, very sound analysis. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree. Deb (talk) 14:12, 25 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:Bismarck monuments[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 (WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 24 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:Diana, Princess of Wales memorials[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 (WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should match the other categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree. The current phrasing is very clumsy. Deb (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agathoclea (talk) 15:46, 28 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:John F. Kennedy memorials[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) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 24 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_24&oldid=887105779"