Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5[edit]

Parliamentary private secretaries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Parliamentary private secretaries

Category:Politicians from Corfu (regional unit)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Politicians from Corfu is the only content Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are very tiny islands with hardly any population, they are not worth keeping up an extra category later. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2020 (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:Sportspeople by city or town in Greece[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To include people from islands and other geographical divisions, like Category:Greek politicians by place Rathfelder (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By location can be a parent category of by city, provided there is enough content by location on top of by city. Maybe in Greece there is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but how would it help anyone? Local government boundaries in Greece are quite complicated enough without this. We have Category:People by city or town in Greece, Category:People by island in Greece, Category:People by administrative region in Greece, Category:People by municipal unit in Greece, Category:People by municipality in Greece and Category:People by regional unit in Greece. Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a wider issue here. I dont see any good reason for splitting off people by occupation from cities for people by occupation from other sorts of places, within a country. I am pretty confident that many biographies state that the subject came from a a city when in reality they came from somewhere nearby which is or was outside the municipal boundary. Most people, apart from politicians, dont pay much attention to municipal boundaries. Rathfelder (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2020 (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:Lists of Polish gminas[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, merging content to Category:Lists of municipalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one page: List of municipalities of Poland TerraCyprus (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page was bot generated, see Category:Lists of gminas of Poland TerraCyprus (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2020 (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:Defunct Right Opposition Marxist–Leninist parties in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Defunct Marxist–Leninist parties in the United States. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one member. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not see much scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is too small a category. I have to admit I do not think for category purposes it makes sense to split by whether the parties still exist, but that is a discussion for another day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2020 (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:Software that uses installCore[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 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure where the line gets drawn, since we have Category:Software by programming language, but installCore appears to be an installer/adware, which feels like it's probably not WP:DEFINING enough but I don't know. Le Deluge (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that installCore is not a programming language, and it shouldn’t be grouped in with them. On whether it’s WP:DEFINING, I guess I’d break that into specificity and common use. I’d argue there’s no problem with ambiguity, as the software either uses this library/package or it doesn’t. In this case the use is also user-visible. For usage as a way of defining software, an analogous example would be listing the engine for a video game, eg Quake (video game). (I initiated this category page). Conflatuman (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:49, 5 December 2020 (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:Starman 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 15:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Starman is ambiguous. These films are Japanese Super Giant films. Super Giant is known as "Starman" in America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:49, 5 December 2020 (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:Fossil insects of Africa[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 nominated, to match "prehistoric" parents. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent cats such as Category:Prehistoric arthropods of Africa and cousin categories such as Category:Prehistoric fish of Asia. Note: There is also Category:Fossils etc (largely a separate tree) so further tidying may be needed. DexDor (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The categories are subcategories of the Parent Category Category:Fossils, with a name change happening at (the poorly named Category:Prehistoric eukaryote taxa. Category:Prehistoric arthropods of Africa and its relatives are creations of the banned sock/master Caftaric/Look2See1 and should be renamed to match the parent Category:Fossils.--Kevmin § 17:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC) links corrected DexDor (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You created e.g. Category:Fossil insects of Africa, put it under prehistoric (not fossil) categories and populated it with articles about species (not fossils). Category:Prehistoric eukaryote taxa is currently in both the fossil and prehistoric category structures. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleontological conventions and authorities use the term Fossil, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--Kevmin § 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of the current situation or how it has grown, I would expect "fossils" to be used for articles about individual fossils (geological), versus "prehistoric animals" for articles about species of prehistoric animals (biological). So in that sense I support the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, that is not how paleontological conventions and authorities use the term, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--Kevmin § 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the proposal but I will note that "fossil" can refer to "fossil taxa" — that is, species and other groups known only from fossils. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a clear distinction (or in fact any distinction) between fossil insects and prehistoric insects? DexDor (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subfossil lemurs are an example of species that might be considered "prehistoric" but not "fossil". I'm not aware of similar examples for insects but I'm not familiar with the insect literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These are species of insects. That only their fossils remain is not a defining characteristic. Dimadick (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, that is not how paleontological conventions and authorities use the term, and we should follow nomenclatural convention, rather than lay expectation.--Kevmin § 21:24, 14 December 2020 (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.

Armenian diaspora categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Our categories currently separate people of "full" and "partial" Armenian descent. Not only is this unlikely to be followed in practice, the idea that anyone is purely one ethnicity is basically a myth.[1] I feel more strongly about the merge than the target location, but as Place Clichy pointed out here, "Fooian people of Booian descent" is the usual pattern and should be followed for consistency. See also the 2018 CfD in which "Armenian Americans" was merged. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
extended content
  • Merge (or reverse merge) as the distinction between full descent and partial descent is not defining and likely to be trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all these. The distinction makes no sense and escapes many editors. Rathfelder (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The existence of a separate Fooian Booians tree, for Armenians only, seems to be originally relying on this this 2008 CfD attended by 4 editors. Since then, the latter format has become the widely accepted standard for ethnic and national origin, as in Category:People by ethnic or national descent. As mentioned, assumptions of full vs. partial ethnicity or ancestry are too tricky to be a sane basis for categorization. They are also likely to be applied very inconsistently by our numerous uncoordinated editors. Place Clichy (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (except Lebanese, Turkish, Syrian, and perhaps central Asian countries) -- We decided on the format booians of fooian descent a long time ago. However, for the exceptions Armenian is an ethnicity within countries into which Ottoman Empire was divided. This also applies to Assyrian and perhaps a few more Ottoman Empire millets. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making exceptions for ethnic categories in former Ottoman Empire countries is very reasonable. However this requires rewriting the page headers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of non-defining descent categories suffering the usual problems: objectively why is it defining, objectively how recent/remote must/may it be to be defining, objectively what percentage is sufficient, and what reliable sources tell us all the above. There's a list at Armenians in the United Kingdom, which could use improvement with the definition and sourcing, and a category is the wrong way to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is that in reality a lot of these people are Armenians more in the way Jews are Jews. It was an ethno-religious designation within the Ottoman Empire. Within the Russian and Soviet Empires it was also something complex. The same really goes for Iran. For now I would say we should hold off on merging for any former Soviet entity, Iran, and Greence and any other country that used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. In practice many of the people in categories like Category:Goegian Armenians really should be in Category:Soviet Armenians and Category:Imperial Russian Armenians (which should be renamed to Category:Russian Empire Armenians. Our Jewish category would be just as messy if the people in 1947 had chosen Judea instead of Israel as the name for their country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Purge — far too much emphasis on fractional heritage. Once upon a time, we had a guideline that it had to be notable at WP:EGRS, but that appears to have gone by the wayside.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (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:Conspiracy theorists[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are three main problems with this category.
  1. It expresses in WikiVoice an unattributed judgement that, per WP:BLP, must be always attributed
  2. The term is a pejorative one, therefore, inherently expresses a POV. For example, a belief in foreign interference in domestic affairs can be variously described by sources as a plausible explanation of facts or a belief in conspiracy, depending on the source's point of view, and this discussion should be tackled in individual articles rather than by slapping categories of this type.
  3. Mislabelling. A theorist is "someone who develops an abstract idea or set of ideas about a particular subject in order to explain it" (Collins Dictionary[2]), "someone who develops ideas about the explanation for events" (Cambridge Dictionary[3]). Keyword: develops. However, the category lists mainly people who merely voice support to a given belief and are thus not even remotely theorists.
Unless someone proposes a better name, I recommend deleting the category as not compliant with the project's policies. — kashmīrī TALK 07:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is largely a container category (and so it should be in order to avoid BLP problems), this category correctly contains subcategories of "Foo conspiracy theorists". If there is an issue here then the issue is in the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we containerise it? The various sorts of conspiracy theorists dont have much in common. Rathfelder (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would be for the better. The few articles directly in this category do not belong here anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is a parent category to a category tree, and several of the people included are only known for this trait. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • category not tagged Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is useful as a container category. For few articles are presumably organisations propounding conspiracy theories (I have not checked). I do not see why the salafist Abu Qatada is not this category. His views are (or were) obnoxious and he conspired in various terrorist mischief, but that make him a conspirator, not a conspiracy theorist. He should be moved to an appropriate subcat or simply removed. This is the only bio here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one person's conspiracy is another's fact or religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have not said this even 5 years ago, but with the growing boldness of some to engage in cancel culture if we allow this to stand it will be in a short time used to categorize people who believe that there are actual physical differences between men and women and other ideas that are even less histircally objectionable. This very category is a violation of NPOV rules. I say this with a full understanding that there are many true nuts out there, but after the SPLC went after groups that only engage in law suits and never in violance as "hate groups" I know not to trust people to show actual restraint is using these terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and containerize. After 16 years and 3 CfD, cannot really say this is "not compliant with the project's policies." The main article is Conspiracy theorists, so WP:C2D.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This category has had a long history of being a container. Moreover, this category is present on many other Wikipedias, including the Spanish one. Paleontologist99 (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – more so over the proposed deletion of all the daughter categories. Some while say that this category is WP:NONDEF, if you look at articles such as David Icke, Kate Shemirani, and Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist), their advocacy of conspiracy theories are central to their notability. The nominator claims that the title is misleading, but while conspiracy theories are not actual theories properly speaking, per WP:COMMONNAME I can't think of any term that is suitable as a replacement. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2020 (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:Banijay Group franchises[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 15:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the company's current simple name. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2020 (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 murdered by the Kansas City crime family[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SPECULATION, WP:COP & WP:OVERLAPCAT
The three biography articles in this category are all organized crime figures in the Kansas City area, all three are already under Category:Kansas City crime family, and all three met a violent end. Maybe I'm being naïve here, but none of the murders were ever officially solved and this category appears speculative about who killed them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tiny category with little scope for expansion. If the murders are unsolved, we should not be identifying the murderers. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough there to justify the category. I have doubts about some of the people in the category being notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2020 (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:Places named for Christopher Columbus‎[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SHAREDNAME) and, arguably, WP:G4
There is a reason this is the last "Places named for Foo" category left on Wikipedia: this is an explicit violation of WP:SHAREDNAME. This category contains mostly small U.S. cities like Columbus, Kentucky, Columbus, Wisconsin, and Columbus, North Dakota, none of which are even remotely defined by a 15th Century, Trans-Atlantic explorer. The contents are already listified here in a separate list article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Contested WP:G4 Speedy Deletion Nomination

This category may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. See the previous discussion.

This page should not be speedily deleted because... no reason for deletion given except a link to a 2006 discussion of a multi-category nomination regarding only cities. Seems like a reasonable and diversely populated category. --Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a speedy deletion is to be brief but the concern is that a Trans-Atlantic explorer is not WP:DEFINING for Columbus, New Mexico and Columbus, North Dakota by per WP:SHAREDNAME. The earlier CFD discussion considered whether to convert Category:Cities named for Christopher Columbus to Category:Places named for Christopher Columbus but rejected this proposed category in favor of deletion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a brief discussion by what looks like four editors in 2006, three of them suggesting putting the topics in a list. Since Wikipedia guidelines say that lists, templates, and categories are three different ways to group things and are separate and complimentary things, that negates the discussion right there. I don't understand "not defining", as the entries are places or things named after the principal topic (maybe a name change to "Places and things named for...") which is what the category collects. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2020 (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/2020_December_5&oldid=998645498"