Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 21#Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic

Category:Palestinian Christian communities[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. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: listify and delete, most of these communities aren't Christian but instead they are Islamic with a substantial Christian minority. A list that includes a percentage is better in a case like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Listify is always a good option when it comes to Palestinian / Arab / Israeli issues. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, given most of these are not "Christian communities". While I would agree that a list containing percentages would be better, this category does not contain enough information to create such a list (let alone a properly sourced one). If we must listify, I would suggest doing so at Talk:Palestinian Christians and Talk:Christianity in Israel, and maybe the editors of those articles can do something with the information. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These articles are just what they say, communities (i.e. villages) with a Palestinian Christian population, which is a sizeable minority of the Palestinian population. No, for those who don't know, not all Palestinians are Muslim. In this part of the world, it very much makes sense to speak of a populated place together with the ethnoreligious group which occupies it (a habit dating back to Ottoman times). See for instance Category:Maronite communities, Category:Christian communities in Lebanon‎, Category:Christian communities in Syria, Category:Christian communities of India, Category:Druze communities, Category:Alawite communities etc. Read lede sections : Beit Jala is a Palestinian Christian town...; Beit Sahour['s] population of 12,367[1] is 80% Christian (most of them Greek Orthodox) and 20% Muslim.[2]; In 1882, the Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine described Bir Zeit as "a Christian village of moderate size..."; Jifna has retained a Christian majority since the 6th century CE; Taybeh [...] is the last all-Christian community in the West Bank.; In 1838, Robinson found the village [of Rafidia] to be entirely Christian; In Zababdeh, [...] roughly two-thirds are Christians, and by law the mayor has to be a Christian; Aboud [...] has a mixed population of Muslims and Christians, mostly Eastern Orthodox; Bethlehem now has a Muslim majority, but is still home to a significant Palestinian Christian community.; Ramallah was historically an Arab Christian town. etc. Place Clichy (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Recognizing that it can be appropriate to categorize places by the religious makeup of their inhabitants, I think we must first differentiate between places that are Christian communities (e.g. Beit Jala, Taybeh) and ones that contain a Christian community (e.g. Acre, Jerusalem). Once we have, how do we define a "Christian community" without relying on an arbitrary threshold (like the 20% threshold in the category description)? Also, how do we categorize a community that was majority-Christian historically, but where Christians have been demographically overtaken or ethnically cleansed, without misrepresenting the present reality (e.g. Ramallah is 25% Christian, Bethlehem is 16%)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only possible criterion for inclusion is WP:Reliable sources calling a locality a Christian town (or Druze, or Alawite, or Maronite, or Greek Orthodox etc.), past or present. I agree that we must not rely on a census threshold. However, my main point is that we should not treat the two nominated categories alone: either we remove all ethno-religious categorization of places in the Levant and elsewhere in the world, which form most of the content of Category:Communities by ethnic group and Category:Communities by religion (and I am open to that), or we should keep these. Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, although the part about "past or present" seems like a slippery slope to me, given a lot of Middle Eastern localities were Christian at one point in time or another, before their Christian populations were killed, expelled, or demographically overtaken by Muslims. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but past communities are only worth categorization if their status as former XYZ community is substantially discussed in the article. If the Ramallah article discusses its Christian past with details and sources then it is definitely worth categorizing it as such, however if any other place which has in all likelihood seen people of any faith on earth pass by without it being covered in the article, then categorization is clearly not acceptable per WP:DEFINING. Place Clichy (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, request for closure posted at the administrators noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 2007 PCBS Census Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. p.117.
  2. ^ History, Economy, and Tourism Archived 2014-03-20 at the Wayback Machine Beit Sahour Municipality.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This way we can better show actual religion percentages, as well as change over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 7 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 populated places in Palestine (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: rename, as the arguments against the usual convention (using current polity) are not finally persuasive. The sub-cat Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict is a valid but unusual category, and IMHO should remain parented by categories for former populated places in both Israel & State of Palestine, among others. – Fayenatic London 23:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is classified within the tree of category:Former populated places by country, which should refer to the modern country State of Palestine (a UN-observer status state since 2013) and not the geographical area Palestine (region). Currently, this is the only category of a region within the by country tree. Most of the articles in this cat are already correctly classified, while the few which are located in modern Israel can be easily recategoried. This proposal will come in line with previous procedures to differentiate Palestine region and the modern State of Palestine, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Economy of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened following this request: [1] [2]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC) I am re-opening this discussion following a request for more time. Please can the eventual closing admin take into account all comments made in both the original and extended and restore the category to its original location if such an outcome is reached. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing between Mandatory Palestine and Palestine (region), which are not the same. You cannot use one to define the other. So, what you are saying is that category:former populated places in Mandatory Palestine should be the target, but that doesn't make sense, as some of the category contents existed in Mandatory period.GreyShark (dibra) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 31 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:People of Celtic 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: relist, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the modern nations to whom it is applied are factually incorrect (it is at best contestable and can cause lenghty disputes), and it over-categorises in some cases. I have asked one of the editors who has so added the category, User:DuncanHill, to provide a rationale for such applications. None is forthcoming. I hoped there would be some use in retaining it for those to whom it genuinely does apply (Diviciacus (Aedui), Vercassivellaunos, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, et al), yet it seems we cannot have one without the other; in any case other editors have so used it too. Thus with some reluctance I propose it for deletion. Fergananim (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fergananim, please either add the subcats to this nom, or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have reverted @Fergananim's removal from this category of Category:Australian people of Celtic descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) etc. It is utterly bizarre to claim, as Fergananim ddi in edit summaries, that it is incorrect to place "Cat:Bar people of Fooian descent" as a subcat of "Cat:People of Fooian descent". And Fergananim, please don't edit-war over it. You were alreday been reverted once by @DuncanHill; now, per WP:BRD it's time to discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People of Fooian descent??? I have no idea about this Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We had a similar situation a few months ago when Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emptied the "Celtic" categories, then nominated them for deletion as empty. As I recall he made a number of false claims about my involvement in the creation or addition of the categories. He was topic banned. The nominator here, who I must make clear says he is not Brough87, has made false claims on several occasions about my involvement in these categories, including counter-factual claims that I created them. My involvement has chiefly been to revert undiscussed and/or out of process removal of established categories. I have repeatedly told the nominator not to empty the categories, but to nominate them for deletion if he thinks that is appropriate. His response up to now has been to tell me to nominate them! I would like to thank BrownHairedHirl for pinging me in this discussion. I would also note that the nominator opened a DRN case against me without bothering to tell me - I only found out about it after it had been closed. I think the nominator has acted throughout with extreme bad faith. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - The category has not been marked as having been nominated for deletion, so watchers will not be aware of this discussion. I am sure this omission was shear incompetence, not a bad faith attempt to evade scrutiny. In regards to Brough87, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#Editor emptying masses of categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty. Also BRD issues.. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored a significant number of subcats to the nominated category, which the nominator had removed. I have made similar reversions to other categories and subcats as they all should be nominated together or not at all, as BHG said above. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I was indeed mistaken in thinking DuncanHill created the category. For that I apologise. However DuncanHill HAS added the category to a number of others, without a clear explanation why. As a result, and because simply deleting and reverting them achieves nothing, I propose deletion due to its factual inaccuracy and over-categorisation. While I grant I have exasperated DuncanHill, I have not acted out of bad faith. Fergananim (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I added it to a lot of categories - I have restored the category when it was removed out of process. Yet again, Ferganim is lying about my contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, I removed it because there was no clear reason to link so many in the first place. When asked why, you failed to give good reasons. Thus I felt I had to propose deletion as such deletes and reverts could go on ad infinitum. If you can give good reasons, here is the place for it. Fergananim (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the discussion above, change vote to containerize. Meanwhile deleting or merging is out of the question while there are many appropriate related subcategories. However the articles that are currently directly in it mostly belong in and should be moved to Category:People from Roman Gaul. In the future we may discuss the whole tree in a fresh nomination, but this is not the right time for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although this proposal wasn't put together correctly, I support the elimination of "Celtic descent" categories as it is currently being utilized. I see subcategories included in these categories of Irish and Scottish nationality/ethnicity so it looks like it is being used similarly to subcategories put under United Kingdom categories. I think we need a better definition of whom and what period of time "Celtic" refers to. It is not helpful if it is just another level of descent between Irish/Scottish/Welsh people of all time periods and all places and higher level British/UK/European categories. What use it is to have Filipino people of Celtic descent and Nigerian people of Celtic descent categories when they are just stand-ins for categories for Irish or Scottish descent? Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, but let's solve that in a fresh nomination. The subcategories have not been nominated now. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as it's an amazingly wooly and fuzzy category. Is someone really "of Celtic descent" because their grandmother came from Ireland? Even though that grandmother was actually of Viking descent; or Anglo-Norman; or Nigerian, for that matter? Would also support a re-listing which included all of the associated sub-cats "x people of Celtic descent". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of this category and all of Celtic descent subcategories. These are mixing several largely unrelated things : Ancient Celtic people (Gauls, Britons), modern people of perceived Celtic ethnicity (which should be individually tagged in Category:Celtic people according to WP:EGRS) and people of descent from places like Brittany and Galicia. One is not of Celtic ethnicity because their grandmother was born in Galicia! Place Clichy (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete applying a concept that has not realiztically described any nation for the last 700 years is just a bad plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see little objection in principle to containers that group Scottish, Irish, and Welsh together; possibly also Cornish and Breton, but only as container categories. Nevertheless, Celtic are not a particularly useful description, so that I would not oppose wholesale deletion. All articles (mainly biographies) ought to be distributed to more specific categories. However, I do not think there has been a Celtic language in Galicia or France (excluding Brittany), let along Galatia (in Turkey), by which we can characterise people as Celts. I would accordingly want this heavily purged, if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- All such container categories do is retain the notion that all these nations are a block that are the common ethnic and cultural opposite of the English. If such categories are to be used, they must be on some evidential basis, not 19th century romance and racism. This goes to the heart of why I raised this in the first place; it has nothing to back it but popular beliefs based on misunderstood archaeological, historical, linguistic and now genetic evidences. I (and everyone else) still await ANY reasons for so applying them from either DuncanHill or BrownHairedGirl. As they added them, surely they had reasons? Fergananim (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fergananim: most editors here seem to agree with you, but your argument would have even more strength if you took the time to nominate individually in a single discussion all the relevant subcategories (there are 20 of them, see list. Someone needs to take the time to do it, there's no way around it. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 13 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:Reboot Universe[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, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category seems to be based around original research and at minimum the name doesn't make clear what the actual intention is. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as based on original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:45, 2 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:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects[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. Good arguments were made by both sides, but participants overwhelmingly preferred the arguments against deleting the categories.
However, please note that I have have not attempted to evaluate the consensus on the alternative proposal by @RevelationDirect to Make Hidden & Move Under the Category:Wikipedia redirects. There was significant discussion on that option, but I see no explicit changes of !votes resulting from it, so any evaluation would involve far too much inference by the closer. If the nominator (or anyone else) wants to make the proposal in a new nomination, feel free to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are categories that contain no articles, only redirects. And all of those redirects are bot-created cross-namespace redirects pointing to, guess what, the nominated category. There may be some value in maintaining these lists, (perhaps as subpages of WP:RSN) but these are not the way/places to do that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all
    • 1) If/when someone searches for information about (for example) US Open Advanced Mechanical Engineering Journal (or it's ISO 4 abbreviation US Open Adv. Mech. Eng. J./US Open Adv Mech Eng J) they are best presented with some information about the journal / publisher. This was discussed Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59#Brainstorm: Useful "pseudo article" categories.. or something. The publishers aren't notable enough for articles on their own, so we can't redirect the articles to a publisher article. But they are discussed in reliable sources as being predatory, so can put them in the category for the associated publisher.
    • 2) Those categories are critical to WP:CRAPWATCH [See entries #14, #19, #24, #124 in the current version, however keep in mind this is still in development] and deleting them will make it that much more harder to detect and remove citations to those crap journals from Wikipedia.
    • 3) There are no policies or rules preventing these categories from existing in the manner they exist. They are well-defined, encyclopedic, and useful. And even if there were some weird rule against this, this would be a textbook case of where WP:IAR applied. The encyclopedia isn't made better by the deletion of those categories and redirects.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ozzie10aaaa, Doc James, Izno, Enterprisey, Graeme Bartlett, JzG, Randykitty, DGG, and Tokenzero: and cross-posting on WT:MED/WP:RSN/WT:AJ/WT:OA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying in 1) is Wikipedia exists to be a helpful directory of non-encyclopedic bad stuff that people can search for on the internet? Categories and pages created SOLELY for maintenance of the project should be in the Wikipedia: namespace/maintenance category tree, NOT the Mainspace and Article category tree. And how is the above not canvassing? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying those who previously opined on this, those with most knowledge on predatory publishers, and the most relevant WikiProjects shouldn't be notified of this discussion? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck to return discussion to the substantive issues. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think these are reasonable to keep per justification by User:Headbomb Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, creating circular links without any article content is entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia. Anything created here must have its roots in real articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bit of an offbeat situation, but I think the encyclopedia benefits from having these. The information is valuable, and storing that information in any other way (e.g., shuffling it into a different namespace) would come with downsides (e.g., lack of public searchability). XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree that a category with only redirects is inherently problematic, and others have provided reasons why these categories are beneficial. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the category contains only redirects that have the category as their cross-namespace target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that an issue? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Four reasons:
1. Namespaces were created for a reason, so that the encyclopedic content would be separate. CNRs work against this.
2. The filters in the Wikipedia search function exist for a reason, to fine-tune search results. Some encyclopedic search results wind up featuring a large number of these redirect pages due to cross-namespace redirects; making the user weed through them manually.
Ok, that's a problem indeed. Can you show an example? Tokenzero (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Type the text string "International Journal of Env" into the search box. The ten suggestions that appear are a mix of legitimate, notable journals and these circular redirects, with no way to distinguish between them. The same problem happens with many, many other text strings typed into the search box. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects aren't circular. And if you're looking for 'International Journal of Env', either you know what you're looking for and can select what you want from the list of options, can type a few more characters to reduce the options, or you don't know what you're looking for, and may have been looking for a predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Someone typing 'International Journal of Env' is looking for encyclopedic content (this is an encyclopedia, remember?) And right now the search box serves up a mixture of encyclopedic content and garbage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, they are looking for encyclopedic content about garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the Garbage article is for! -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The predatory titles are meant to be misleading, so users that search a predatory title "J. Examples" (to check if it is reliable) are likely to find a legitimate "J. Example" instead without noticing the "s", if the circular/predatory redirects are deleted. The fact that the predatory titles are cited (see citation stats below) and viewed (see pageview stats below) means that people actually search for the predatory ones too (though maybe not often). I believe that the principle reason for which people look for a journal title on Wikipedia is to check whether it is reliable or not (why would you want to read about it otherwise?) – so they don't know if its predatory, they know the title. Tokenzero (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Some mirrors duplicate the main article namespace but not the category namespace. Thus, cross-namespace redirects end up creating thousands of broken links on mirrors.
4. The bot code that created these redirects was defective, in that it neglected to put the redirects into a redirect category embedded in the {{Rcat shell}} template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot functioned exactly as intended, and the absence of a {{Rcat shell}} is no reason to delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, striking the comment to increase the chances that substantive issues will somehow be addressed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason why we should be concerned with preventing broken links in indiscriminate and poorly designed mirrors. Making their websites work better is not our job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle, these are containers for misleading redirects. If someone searches for one of these journals, they should expect article content on that journal. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is a purpose in having them. If they are not so useful to our readers, but more for behind-the-scenes improvements, then they can be made "hidden categories". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly doable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They could all redirect to Beall's List, but the current short yet more specific description at each category is more useful. These descriptions could also be in a different namespace, since they essentially describe reasons for non-notability and predatoriness in particular, but there needs to be a category for these redirects anyway, so why not keep it this way. They are not notable publishers nor journals, but it is useful to have redirects in the mainspace with these titles, both for technical reasons (the WhatLinksHere mechanisms behind this tool for maintaining citation quality, a crucial task for Wikipedia) and for the occasional user search of a journal title. A more specific proposal about what to do in case of deletion would make evaluation easier. Tokenzero (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is absurd. Most of these are fake journals. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is they're cited by Wikipedia, so users would benefit from being able to know about them. For example, searching Scientific & Academic Publishing here shows that their journals are cited 31 times. Tokenzero (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lower bound actually. WP:CRAPWATCH doesn't detect non-templated citations, and some typos of those journals may be unreported. Particularly for the abbreviated version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a recreation of that category, no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are all useful and cited on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRAPWATCH, entry 25. The others were cited in the past (e.g. see entries 16/20 in [3], although be warned that the list was early in its development), but I've cleaned up those articles that cited them before. Once the bot has its logic tweaked (see item B in this discussion, there could be more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also entry 14. Medwell Journals, with 153 citations, and entry 19. International ..., with 63 citations detected. These are the same kind of cats. Tokenzero (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly entry #124 too, as a typo of journals published by Eurasian Research Publishing, but it may also be a legit journal that's similarly named. Or another crap journal similarly named. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant there was some Wikipedia article that cited a reliable source for these categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and make into hidden categories. I find the arguments for deletion to be poorly thought-out, and based more on a rigid interpretation of category rules, rather than on what is good for Wikipedia. There is a valid reason for what are in essence maintenance categories for predatory journals. Thanks for the ping. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Having redirects for journals that are not individually notable, and having those redirects appropriately categorized, is both within Wikipedia's rules and an appropriate thing to do. I don't think there is a rule, nor should there be one, against redirect-only categories, and the fact that these are redirect-only seems to be the only argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all per Tryptofish rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to provide the information. However, doing this by redirects to a category is a rather indirect and potentially confusing way to do this. T I think making it a hidden category would improve that situation. I would interpre the relevant policy as, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and includes information closely related to encyclopedia articles that is of particular value to user of the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, provided all members of these categories are article-namespace redirects in these categories are redirects to other category-namespace pages. If so, then all of the redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK since we are giving readers the false expectation that the subjects of the redirects exist as encyclopedic subjects in the "(article)" namespace. Then, all of the categories nominated here would, in theory, be either empty or WP:SMALLCAT categories eligible for deletion themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, does anyone have a link to the WP:BRFA that approved TokenzeroBot to create all of the incoming redirects to these categories? I'm really interested in seeing it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Never mind, found them, I think. Looks like most of these were probably created as part of TokenzeroBot's 2nd task. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's task 6. Tokenzero (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokenzero: Thanks for that link; I was wondering since seeing why the redirects were created may change my opinion and outlook on these categories. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're created for two main reasons: 1) to give readers that search for these journals information about these journals/their publisher 2) so that WP:CRAPWATCH can pick them up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, redirects and pages in the "article"-namespace should always redirect to an article or be an article per my "delete" comment. But, to avoid continuing this possible tangent and get back on topic since this is a WP:CFD and not a WP:RFD, my thought now is "Are these categories useful in some fashion if all of the redirects pointing towards them were either deleted or redirected?" That is a question which I am still trying to determine an answer for, and am considering withdrawing my opinion on the categories so that the redirects can have a separate discussion. (I mean, best case scenario, all of the redirects would be overwritten with articles that could then be included in the nominated categories, but I really don't see that happening any time soon or even ever since I can tell several of the subjects of these redirects have questionable notability. Heck, I'd even be okay if these categories were converted to list articles and have the redirects target their respective list article, since that would resolve the issue I see with the redirects targeting a category.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these journals are individually notable. They could in theory be converted to lists, but again, these are not notable journals. The only knowledge worth having about these journals is simply knowing that they are deceptive hoaxy crap, and that they shouldn't be cited, save perhaps as a source about themselves. And that can be achieved via a category entry. It could easily be made a hidden category if that's desired, to prevent indexing by google or whatever. If the category is deleted, then someone that looks up information from this journal could very well be under the impression that they are legit, and citations to these journals becomes extremely hard to detect. Which means non-reliable information, cited to the absolute crappiest journals in the world, stays in Wikipedia longer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean and the purpose of all of this, since it seems like a good, efficient way to catch bogus sources whenever the are linked in citation templates. However, the whole concept for doing article-namespace to Category-namespace redirects is still bothersome, IMO. I'm starting to see some sort of WP:RFC brewing in my head for these concerns, possibly establishing some sort of policy or even a new namespace, but the thought in my mind hasn't fully materialized yet. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a new namespace for this is needed, but there could be some {{Redirect category}}/{{Maintenance category}}-like boilerplate or something similar designed to explain the purpose of such categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few ideas being thrown out there, like making the categories hidden or tagging the redirects/categories differently, but that still doesn't resolve the fact that there are tons of redirects in mainspace for what amounts to a maintenance task. Why do there redirects have to exist for this task to be accomplished? I see several redlinks in the aforementioned watchlist for example. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the framework that exists, and it works pretty well [and will work even better once the bot's logic is polished]. The redlinks exist for various reasons, many are false positives (especially in WP:JCW/Questionable2+, but those can be bypassed so they don't get reported in subsequent reports), or they could be one-off journals that don't make sense to have articles on them or categorize, or they could be misspellings. There's also a lot of WP:NOTFINISHED at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mention a "framework" without explaining it. How and why are these categories and redirects important to this process? How are the journals described from these redirects different from the ones that are redlinks? If they need to be distinguished, can this be accomplished in a way that doesn't involve using mainspace for a maintenance task? (eg: having a subpage that lists all of these journals, and the bot can detect and highlight the journals listed there in a certain way...) -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a very quick nutshell, User:JL-Bot looks for what's in the various |journal= parameters of {{cite xxx}} templates, then cross-checks what it finds against WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP. If an entry is found in WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP, or in a category contained in WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP, it is then listed on WP:CRAPWATCH. WP:CRAPWATCH will also report typos and variants of those entries, although the exact logic of that is still being worked out. There is more details in User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 4#Tweak to JL-Bot? and subsequent threads. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the real question is whether these redirects should exist and if so, what should they point to (because having a category of redirects is normal).
For the technical side, I believe JL-Bot, instead of reading categories of redirects, could just as well read internal lists. It's annoying but doable. Headbomb: is this correct, or is JL-Bot (or the crapwatch project in general) using backlink data (like whatLinksHere) – as far as I see this is the only thing that could actually require having redirects (from the technical side)?
As for user searches, to have some idea of whether they are actually useful, let's look at pageview data (tick "Show values"). It gives ~1 view daily for Scientific & Academic Publishing on average (excluding the two obvious peaks by maintainers). I believe it's not noise, since other categories (like World...) which I expect to be less popular indeed have much less views, despite being much larger. The views do come predominantly from redirects, so I presume most are legitimate user searches (except the obvious peaks). In total (including the other categories) that's a few user searches daily being informed. Useful or not – you decide. Tokenzero (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly know the magic sauce in the bot, but let's say the very small Category:Scientific & Academic Publishing academic journals gets deleted. That would, at the very minimum mean adding 415 lines (~12.8 KB) to WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP (because it's the 128 entries, their variants [e.g. '&' / 'and' are variants of each other], plus their ISO 4 redirects, both dotted and undotted). For the bigger Category:World Current Research Publishing academic journals. That would at minimum mean adding 3950 lines (~140 KB). This becomes unmanageable quick. For scale, the current WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP page is roughly 200 KB. There are other benefits that get lost too, like typos and miscapitalizations being harder to detect, as well as increases in false positives for other journals. And it also means losing valuable coder time on re-coding something that already works.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make Hidden & Move Under the Category:Wikipedia redirects Tree Having visible categories that group redirects that then point to the same article doesn't aid reader navigation. But, if this serves an tracking purpose, let's convert these to tracking categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an acceptable solution for the category. But it still leaves the problem of the redirects. There should be something substantial that the redirects are redirecting to, e.g. to Beall's List or to Wikipedia:List of unreliable sources. An RFC as User:Steel1943 suggested might be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: The issue pertaining to the redirects has been in my mind for the past several hours. At the present time, I've been able to formulate two possibilities for what to propose at an WP:RFC: Either 1) a new namespace, or get this ... 2) a brand new Wikimedia project!
      1. So, for "1)", the namespace could be named "Source" with 99% of the pages in the "Source" namespace being redirects to either article-namespace pages that share the name of the "Source" namespace page or a related list, or to a "Category-namespace" page as the example in this nomination. Then, afterwards, all "cite" template that link to its source in the article namespace would need to be updated to link to "Source:" namespace pages instead. In addition, to perform maintenance on non-existent "Source" namespace pages as referenced above, a bot may need to run a task every once in a while to check transclusions of citation templates (probably no more than once a day to prevent false positives) with red-linked "Source" namespace pages, check to see if an exact title match exists in the article namespace, and target that page (or the target of the redirect which matches its name.)
      2. So, "2)" ... a new Wikimedia project called something like "WikiReferences". This option I'm kind of 50/50 on because the idea in my head seems like it would be another "Beall's list", but instead maintained by the community. The project would be a point for the community to discuss and establish guidelines for individual sources, form consensus on them, and then determine how valid the source is in regards to it being used in citations on any Wikimedia site. This thought actually came to me somewhat when I reviewed the WP:DAILYMAIL discussion, and this one seems to be of a similar nature by essentially listing several publications as potentially unusable, but as redirects. This way, all languages would be able to come to a international understanding and consensus to determine if a soiyrce is valid to use or not. (However, like I said above, I'd fear that such a project would come under legal scrutiny like Beall's list did unless the project would have legal protections, such as the level of legal protections most of the other Wikimedia projects have for the reasoning of, I assume, that volunteers perform the work, which by default results in legal protections.) If there are no legal issues with such a project, I'd think this would be more of a permanent solution globally since such a system/project could be utilized by every project in every language. And the information in the project could the be linked to Wikidata to automatically connect to the articles and projects that it needs to in the matters necessary to perform the same purpose behind these nominated categories.
Anyways, that's my two cents on the ideas brewing in my head. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is something substantial at the end of the redirect: the category, with links to Beall's list, and additional references discussing these journals and publishers. Having tens of thousands of redirects to Beall's lists is unworkable, unmaintainable, would cause major WTFs to readers (e.g. 'I searched for Journal of Hot Potatoes, why am I on Beall's list which doesn't mention Journal of Hot Potatoes anywhere?') and would render WP:CRAPWATCH a complete nightmare to maintain. Having a cross-namespace redirect to a Wikipedia namespace list is probably even more nightmary, and will cause an equally big WP:IDONTLIKEIT reaction amongst the nay-sayers as cross namespace redirects to categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument to keep is that it is important for maintenance, so if that is the case Wikipedia:List of unreliable sources would not be problematic, in principle. It will only become problematic if accountability for the list remains lacking, like it is lacking right now. The current structure of circular links without an article circumvents accountability, circumvents WP:V. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't lack accountability, nor does this structure circumvents/violates WP:V. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this discussion made me think that, if somehow all of the redirects were determined to be something that should be deleted, at RfD, then there would be a valid argument for deleting the categories. But the delete arguments fall flat for me when I consider that deleting the category, on the basis that the redirects are allegedly not useful enough, ends up being an end-run around a decision about the redirects that should not be made here. I'm also noticing that the !votes here are trending delete among the editors who are CfD regulars, and trending keep among the editors who are knowledgeable about predatory journals, something that is typical of CfD discussions and that seems to me to be a problem with CfD: that decisions should be made based on content-related concerns and not based on various rigid rules that a small number of users have thought up about the "tidiness" of categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing that same split you're describing (and clearly, I'm a CFD regular). Obviously you disagree with the "Delete" votes above, but what do you think of the un-rigid proposals above about making the categories administrative and creating a list article as a target for the redirects? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly object to it, but I also don't feel that there is a particularly strong need to do it. I've endorsed making the categories into hidden categories, so I would also be fine with making them administrative categories. The decision about whether or not there should be a list page is a decision that should be made on its own merits, and not as part of a category discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If lists were created, and the redirects pointed to those lists, then the rationale for deleting the redirects and/or the categories would fall apart. There would also be no reason to make the category 'administrative' if we did that. But that solution assumes that the list wouldn't be sent to AFD (perhaps repeatedly, perhaps even by editors who are operating with conflicts of interest), and I'm not confident in that. "Make list, repoint everything to the list, delete the list for lack of notability, and then delete all the redirects to the now-deleted list" is a predictable outcome but not a good solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb; at least give these people rope to hang themselves. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand the reasoning behind what's been done, but what we have here is a number of redirects, each of which is really a list entry, since the topic is never going to be notable enough to be an article. So why not create a list article/s for all the redirects to point to, rather than a dodgy category? If each redirect also needs to be a member of a hidden category to make the CRAPWATCH machinery work, then do that too. By the way, few of the redirects have the correct rcat {{R to category namespace}} (which in a way is good because they'd overwhelm Category:Redirects to category space). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the category would still contain all the redirects if there were a list, but then the list would be AFD'd as non-notable and deleted as such. And then the redirects deleted per WP:CSD#G8. And then the category deleted as empty. Leaving readers with nothing, and WP:JCW/CRAP unable to pick up citations to crap journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: yes, I see, thanks. In which case... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the categories and make hidden because they exist only for a legitimate maintenance task. Regarding the redirects, perhaps we need a new rcat "R for maintenance purposes" with an explanation of why a redirect targets a hidden category. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update relevant results in WP:CRAPWATCH are now entries 15, 21, 29, and possibly 180 19, 32, 44 21, 37, 56 24, 39, 56. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 8 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:Bryn Athyn College[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) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
Bryn Athyn College is a small religious school outside Philadelphia and, right now, the category contains the main article and the school seal (which is already in the infobox of that same main article.) I assumed I could populate any college category but I wasn't able to even scrape together an alumni subcategory. The article mentions that the school is surrounded by notable historical religious structures but none of them are part of the college and they are already under Category:General Church of the New Jerusalem and I created Category:Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 31 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:Almighty Vice Lord Nation[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) 08:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
The Almighty Vice Lord Nation is actually a rather large gang in Chicago but, per the article, the group has tried to keep a low profile with a conservative or Muslim covers which means it's less likely to create individually notable members so category growth is limited. Right now the only articles are the main one and that of a co-founder. No objection to recreating the category if I'm wrong and 5 or so articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 31 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_31&oldid=947060383"