Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Withdrawn—I was not aware of the CfD; for some reason it was not findable from the history of the relevant categories. (non-admin closure) Fiamh (talk, contribs) 00:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was split from the above due to local consensus on the wikiproject. However, I don't think we should have a precedent of treating Native American ancestry as distinct from other types of ancestry in categorization. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez self-identifies as having Sephardic Jewish ancestry without any evidence. We list her in Category:American people of Sephardic-Jewish descent (though we probably shouldn't), but, more importantly, we did not create Category:People who self-identify as being of Sephardic Jewish descent for similar claims.
That's why I support selective merge: If RS state that person claims such and such ancestry, that should be mentioned in the article without putting them in a category. Only if RS state that person is of such and such ancestry do they go in relevant category. Claiming or believing a certain ancestry is not a defining characteristic of a person. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link you have in there, Fiamh, is to a totally unrelated discussion, not to the previous, recent CFD. As I state below, it was not "a local decision." And the "selective merge" already happened when we did cleanup on all the affected bios. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After a long discussion over the spring and into summer, this was already resolved. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This was already recently dealt with and resolved, here at CFD - Permalink to Close - not at the wikiproject, after a very long discussion that lasted from the spring through the summer. We have now spent months sorting hundreds of BLPs and other Bios into the appropriate categories, to align with the consensus. Changing this now would be highly disruptive. There is no reason to go through this again. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:08, 30 October 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:Polara albums[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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Due to ambiguity issues in the past (whether to disambiguate category names or not), it has become standard procedure to name music artist's albums and songs categories after the article title of the person or group. If the article name is disambiguated, so are these categories. The rename was opposed at speedy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:07, 29 October 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:Judaism and atheism[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. MER-C 13:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The newly-created category seems to be a useless intermediate level between Category:Religion and atheism and its only child Category:Jewish atheism. The latter can very well be located directly in the former, and it actually is. Place Clichy (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Jews are an ethnoreligious group, and that one can be Jewish without ascribing to Judaism. Category:Jewish atheism highlights this split between ethnic and religious identity due to its other parent Category:Secular Jewish culture. Category:Judaism and atheism is essentially its complementary category, referring specifically to the religion and its relationship to atheism. --Invokingvajras(talk) 20:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, the inclusion should be the other way around: the relationship between religious Judaism and atheism is a subset of the relationship between ethnoreligious Judaism and atheism. Problem then: the first category would be empty. Place Clichy (talk) 22:42, 29 October 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:Speculative fiction websites & portals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Speculative fiction websites. There's a clear consenus for renaming and a rough consensus against merging. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles. No definition. I'd say both Harry Potter and Science Fiction are part of literature. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Speculative fiction and Category:Speculative fiction exist, so by the same logic this category might exist. However, if the content remains limited to only two subcats we can also do without this layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important category, combining all the subcategories and articles devoted to sites and portals about all the subgenres of speculative fiction and there are much more than three. Many sites and portals are not dedicated to a separate subgenre of speculative fiction, but to the whole variety as a whole, therefore this category is very important..--Yasnodark (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, this category is not about sites dedicated not only to literature, but also to speculative fiction cinema, television, games, comics, painting, etc.--Yasnodark (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is better populated now. While it is now being discussed anyway, I would suggest speedy renaming to Category:Speculative fiction websites per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nomination is closed - I will agree to the renaming too.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:51, 31 October 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:Interdisciplinary websites[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. For the record, the only member was Figure/Ground. MER-C 13:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. No definition offered. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 29 October 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:Follow for Now albums[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. Discussions about the entire tree are best discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music if changing the overall structure is desired, it is however clear that right now there's a consensus to keep the category. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This band only ever had one album; per WP:SMALLCAT I propose that the category is unnecessary and will not grow. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 'unless' clause of WP:SMALLCAT: part of the scheme Category:Albums by artist. Oculi (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although not all of the possible artist-albums categories have actually been created yet, Category:Albums by artist is a scheme that is meant, at least in principle, to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — note, for example, that it is called "albums by artist", and not "albums by artists who have released at least X number of albums". So even a one-article category is allowed to exist in that tree, under SMALLCAT's "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" provision. That said, the band's article is completely unreferenced, and even the album's article is 50 per cent blogsourced, so I'm not fully convinced that either of them are actually notable at all — but if you want to challenge them (which I admit I don't feel strongly enough about to take on myself), the appropriate process would be to list them for AFD deletion first and then list this category for speedy deletion as an empty category if and when the articles have been deleted. But as long as the album does have an article, this category is automatically allowed to exist regardless of whether any other albums existed or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Today I spent some time improving the articles for the band and their one album (both are notable but obscure and nobody did any significant work on either article since around 2007). In the process I came across this category and proposed the deletion, but perhaps misread WP:SMALLCAT. No matter; consider the nomination withdrawn if the category's existence is within policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can this category possibly be useful to readers? If anything, it actively misleads them. If I see Category:Follow for Now albums on Follow for Now (album), I'm going to infer that I can click it and navigate to other albums by the group. I understand the reasoning about the "unless" clause, but this isn't just a category that will "never have more than a few members" - it will literally only ever contain one. Colin M (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter if it can ever contain more than one article or not. While it's true, as I already noted, that not all of the possible categories actually exist yet, in principle Category:Albums by artist has to be able to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — which means that every album that has a Wikipedia article at all must unconditionally be allowed to have an "Artist albums" category as soon as somebody deigns to create one. The number of albums the band did or didn't release is irrelevant: every album must always be allowed to connect with the "Albums by artist" tree regardless of whether the artist in question recorded fifty albums or just one, and no album can ever be forcibly exiled from it. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in principle Category:Albums by artist has to be able to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all But why? Again, how does this help any readers? We shouldn't just follow rules and procedures for the sake of following rules and procedures. Colin M (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because a person who's navigating downward from the head Category:Albums by artist should rightly be able to find every single album that has a Wikipedia article at all in that tree. That's how it helps readers: by not imposing arbitrary exclusion rules whereby that person won't find all of the relevant content for some secret reason that's not communicated by the category tree. People do not only navigate categories upward from articles, you know: they also navigate categories downward from parent categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this still seems to be an argument along the lines of "in principle it ought to be possible to do X", rather than addressing a realistic scenario. Who is this user, why are they navigating downward through Category:Albums by artist, and how will they be inconvenienced, misled, or otherwise harmed if Category:Follow for Now albums isn't there? Surely they're not browsing every single subcategory, since there are 23,000 of them, right? So are they specifically seeking out Follow for Now albums? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just type "Follow for Now" into the search bar? (As opposed to navigating to Category:Albums by artist, clicking "F" in the table of contents, scanning the first 200, seeing that "Follow for Now" isn't there, clicking "next page", clicking "next page", and eventually locating Category:Follow for Now albums?) Colin M (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a fair point but it is best to discuss that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree with the established consensus or not, it's ultra vires the scope of this discussion to overturn it. As Marcocapelle noted, you would have to raise a wider policy discussion about the overall concept that we should entirely rethink the tree's policy of all-inclusiveness, so that everybody with an interest in that discussion has proper notification and a proper opportunity to participate — you cannot break established consensus on this matter just by arguing that one category should be excluded from it. Either every single subcategory of Category:Albums by artist that has less than five albums to file in it gets mass-nominated in one giant batch so we can consider the relevant issues across the board, or this one does not get treated any differently than the others. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: not trying to say you're wrong, but on what basis do you believe this consensus exists? Like, is there a guideline about this somewhere, or was there an RfC? Or has this scheme been consistently endorsed in past CFD discussions? (I don't have much experience at CFD, so please forgive my ignorance.) I see that there is a sentence at the top of Category:Albums by artist that supports your interpretation, and it does say something that it's been there for >10 years, but category pages don't tend to have many watchers or be highly trafficked, so I'm not convinced that that fact alone represents more than very local consensus. Colin M (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions, such as AFD for articles or CFD for categories, are exactly where consensus gets hashed out. It certainly makes it easier if consensus gets documented in a policy statement or essay, because then we can just point to that document and drop the mic, but there's no rule that if a consensus hasn't been formally documented that way yet then it somehow fails to exist in the first place — if you can point to a consistently established principle in past deletion discussions on comparable topics, that is still evidence of consensus. And, as it happens, CFD has never deleted an "artist albums" category that actually had any albums filed in it at all, except in two specific circumstances: either (a) the band and/or the albums were found to be fundamentally non-notable, so that the category was emptied by that finding and now had zero articles left in it, or (b) the category consisted entirely of redirects to the band's discography, with no actual standalone articles in it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't disagree with that, just trying to educate myself. Like I said, I don't have much experience at CFD. Thanks. Colin M (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is a nomination about a single category, however it does not make sense to treat this category any different than comparable categories that have not been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - I am the nominator but don't really mind how this turns out. But per the above discussion, perhaps the description at WP:SMALLCAT should be expanded to include this specific business about the need for interconnected "albums by artist" categories even if they are indeed "small". Also, the above vote by Marcocapelle is an other stuff exists argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions, unless the SMALLCAT rule can explain that this type of category gets special treatment. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a long standing consensus that we allow one-article categories here. While consensus may change, it should change about the general principle, not about a single category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's true but you missed the point. That consensus should be more visible to others who are not part of the select group who agreed upon it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is there in full view at WP:SMALLCAT, which explicitly includes the phrase "such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". It does not require a great leap to apply this to albums. Oculi (talk) 12:44, 31 October 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:Irish-related place names in England[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. I'll list this on the manual page if someone wants to create a verifiable list. MER-C 13:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR. Take Commondale, for example, in the article it's stated without a ref that the name derives from Irish "Colmán". But that theory is extremely dubious. There's a similar situation at Great Corby. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now purged out all of the questionable entries, leaving a few that were verifiable. I think it should still be deleted per WP:SHAREDNAME. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like the argument is not that this category fails to capture a cogent, interesting property, but rather that, in practice, it's been applied to articles inappropriately, in contradiction of WP:CATVER. Given that, I think a better approach could be to remove the cat from every article (after confirming that each instance fails WP:CATVER). Two possible subsequent outcomes: 1) editors watching some of those pages incorporate better sourced material on the etymologies of some of these place names, and re-add the category 2) The category remains empty, and can be deleted for that reason (even speedily, under WP:C1). Colin M (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, being named after Irish people is a trivial characteristic of place names. Side comment, -related in the category name is utterly vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the articles are about places; not about names. Per precedent e.g. this. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- Place-name studies are a well developed field in England. This is not wholly trivial in the way that such a category in US probably would be, but (having checked Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-names), most of these are genuine, but they are rather disparate and the origin of the name rarely appears in the article on the place, so that this looks like (but is not) WP:OR. The Irish connection is in fact somewhat diverse: an Irish missionary at Malmesbury; personal names that may be of Irish origin in Cumbria (but might they actually be from the Welsh dialect once spoken there); Ireby is village of the Irish, but probably refers to Vikings displaced from Ireland, rather than ethnic Irish. The piece of research incorporated in this category appears genuine, but the job would be done rather better by a list article, where the Irish connection could be explained: I had to look at a book to verify that this was not a load of trash. It may be useful to add that such names are very rare in England; many place-names contain an element that is usually explained as a personal name, but usually someone not otherwise known to history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 4 November 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.

For the record, a list was inserted at Celtic_toponymy#Goidelic. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaboration with the British Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 8#Category:Collaboration with the British Empire

Category:LGBT people by ethnicity[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. MER-C 13:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCEGRS. An editor felt the need to create this category and place it on Category:LGBT Jews, probably because the latter was already a child of Category:LGBT people by religion, and Jewish categories are often categorized both as a religion and an ethnicity. However there's a big difference here: the intersection of LGBT and religion is a notable topic in its own right, because nearly all religions take public positions on LGBT topics, but the intersection with ethnicity is not. Place Clichy (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clear-cut OCEGRS. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 12:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've routinely deleted "LGBT people of X ethnicity" categories whenever they've been tried in the past, so Category:LGBT Jews is literally the only thing left that could ever be filed here at all — but what's significant and category-worthy about the intersection of LGBTness with Judaism is the religious aspects of Judaism, not the ethnicity aspects. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:15, 2 November 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:Indian comedy science fiction films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the parent category Category:Science fiction comedy films. The same needs to be done for Category:American comedy science fiction films, Category:Canadian comedy science fiction films‎, Category:Russian comedy science fiction films‎‎ and Category:Comedy science fiction films by decade. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To follow the format of the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The parent category was renamed by CFD a few days ago, and these probably should have been bundled into that discussion from the start so that they were all considered together. However, please note that the other categories mentioned in the nomination statement also need to be tagged as part of this discussion — I'll look after that now, but for future reference all the categories in a batch nomination need to be tagged with the CFR template. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not know how to nominate multiple categories at the same time, hence I did this. But {{cfr}} may have provided me with the answer, so thank you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 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_October_29&oldid=936296182"