Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Black geoscientists[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maybe I'm missing something, but this category name doesn't fit our existing pattern of category naming, i.e. Category:African-American scientists, Category:African-American mathematicians, etc. --bender235 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are missing that African-American and Black are not the same. There needs to be a subcategory specifically for Black GEOscientists, which there currently is not. Please do NOT delete this category. Thank you. MethanoJen (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link adjusted to fit small screens better. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, skin color is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the closer: Note that MethanoJen, the category creator, canvassed [1] users here to vote keep via Twitter.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support the idea of this, but I find WP:ETHNICRACECAT convincing here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the 2006 discussion. That this category was created without any parent categories probably indicates that its creator has a poor understanding of wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classifying people into "Black", "White", "Asian" (Yellow).. etc, is an American fetish we should not adopt in a worldwide encyclopedia. There racial terms are not universally accepted among in the mainstream outside USA. Lappspira (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am prepared to accept that in some situations ethnicity may be defining - though I dont see it for scientists. I dont see skin colour as defining and I dont think we should use it as a shorthand for ethnicity. Rathfelder (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (1) I deleted the tweet. I didn't realize I couldn't "canvass" on Twitter. I apologize. HOWEVER. (2) I think y'all in the Wiki editorial community (btw, I'm willing to bet everyone commenting above is white) needs to do a LOT of reading and thinking, particularly at this critical moment in history, before writing off "Black" as an important category on this vital resource of global knowledge. Please consider carefully before you're so quick to sweep this issue aside. Thank you. MethanoJen (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MethanoJen: with all due respect, but I suggest that you dial down the WP:ADVOCACY just a bit; WP:CFD is probably not the most crucial battleground for social justice at the moment. But regardless, as multiple people have pointed out now, we do not have any categories that divide people by skin color at this point, not just not for geoscientists. If you are truly convinced these types of categories are necessary, an RfC to overturn WP:ETHNICRACECAT is in order. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an attempt to categorize people by race, and race divisions are at best arbitrary and inconsistent. 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  • Delete a ghettoization category impermissible under WP:OCEGRS; no indication that Black geoscientists do geoscience differently than others; if so, prove it! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not another platform for virtue signalling. There are plenty of platforms available for that kind of thing; this is not one of them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: blatant violation of WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Note that a number of recent creations of "Black" categories may also be deleted. Place Clichy (talk) 02:22, 17 June 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:RATP[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Both are topic categories relating to RATP Group. 1857a (talk) 20:55, 10 June 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:English Jews of the Tudor period[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with Category:16th-century Italian Jews. English Jews did not have a specific connection with the Tudor dynasty, so that a more general century category fits better. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the rename, the parent can be changed to Category:16th-century English people as well, so that is not a good reason to oppose. Also, for the few articles in this category the period 1501-1600 is just as valid as the period 1485-1603. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to conventional "by century" which is the standard. "By dynasty" is usually a bad idea. Support changing the parent to Category:16th-century English people as well. Also, some of the people in the lands conquered by the Tudor monarchs (e.g. Ireland) would not have self-identified as "Tudor people" - they were Irish people. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 13 June 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:Academic journals associated with non-profit organizations[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, it is very vague how these journals are related to non-profit organizations. If kept, rename to Category:Academic journals on behalf of non-profit organizations and purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 10 June 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:Jewish German teachers[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; sole article re-categorized as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Name is unsatisfactorily ambiguous. Erich Klibansky seems to have been more a teacher of English than of German, but he was a German schoolteacher - where he is already categorised. There dont seem to be any other Jewish teacher categories. Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary intersection of ethnicity or religion, nationality, and career per WP:OCEGRS. The nom also points out that ambiguity of whether this is meant to categorize Jewish people who teach German (apparently not) or Jewish people who are/were German, who teach (anything). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 23 subcategories of American Jews by occupation, unsurprisingly a lot more than any other country. I suppose the question of whether the intersection is significant varies from country to country, but many of them dont seem significant to me. Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but merge to Category:German Jews. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article might be better in Category:Jews executed by Nazi Germany - if we think that is a viable category, though there only 3 articles in it at present? And maybe we need to think about Who is a Jew? in this context. Perhaps if a person is executed by the Nazis under their definition that is the one that counts. Rathfelder (talk) 15:17, 11 June 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:Demographics of the European Union[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Category:Demographics of the European Union

Category:Roman amphitheatres in Germany[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category and it is not part of a large sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's unlikely that new amphitheatres will be dug up in Germany. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 14 June 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 declared dead in absentia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to follow the WP:RM renaming of Declared death in absentia to Presumption of death. This category rename was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
@Armbrust and Jack Upland: pinging contributors of CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Armbrust, might have a point there. I don't know what the rules are exactly. The point is that the wording should follow the main article: that is, "People presumed dead" instead of "People declared dead in absentia". We established at the main article that "presumption of death" and "presumed dead" are the standard phrases in English. "Declared dead in absentia" does not appear to be an official term, was not used by any source cited by the main article, is not used in legal dictionaries, and in fact doesn't appear to make sense. Uses of the term on the Internet appears derive from the Wikipedia article. The phrase appears to have derived from a confusion between "presumption of death" and being "sentenced to death in absentia".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose presumed dead leads to the obvious question: "by whom?" The current formulation doesn't beg that unanswerable. There are lots of people who some people presume to be dead but have never been adjudicated as dead by a court. People missing in action in various wars, possible kidnapping victims, absconders, and people who disappeared sufficiently long ago who would break world records in age were they still alive (even Wikipedia presumes only those born in 1896 onward as alive; therefor Wikipedia presumes those born 1895 and earlier to be dead), what use is it to put all those with Category:Year of death missing into this category since the mere addition of that category presumes that there is a year of death, hence the person is dead (becoming, alas, a member of the proposed target category). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Carlossuarez. SportingFlyer T·C 21:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This should include people declared deceased through a legal action, not just vaguely presumed dead. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These oppose comments really miss the point. The point is that "declared dead in absentia" is not a standard legal term. I understand that "presumed dead" could be misinterpreted, so perhaps "legally presumed dead" would be better. But we should not continue to use terminology that is wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something that makes sense and accurately describes the intended purpose of the category (People officially declared dead without a body being found?) or delete as an unnecessary category that doesn't really group articles about similar topics. People who disappeared can be categorized by the year (or decade) in which they are most likely to have died (example). Note: If this category is intended to include everyone who has an article in wp and whose body was not found (e.g. in wartime, in an aircrash, shipwreck explosion) then the category is almost completely empty. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DexDor, probably non-defining. Disappearing is defining but this isn't. Certainly I don't think it's a defining characteristic of Raoul Wallenberg that he was declared dead in absentia. buidhe 08:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wallenberg was not declared dead in absentia. There's no such thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This should only include people who have been legally declared to be dead, not those who are just widely thought to be dead. That's not defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 23 June 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:Tell Abu Sabun[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT contains 3 articles which are already interlinked directly. Upon deletion of the category, the main article Necropolis of Emesa should be added to both current parent categories. If the category is kept, a rename to Category:Necropolis of Emesa may be considered, in line with a recent bold rename of the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 well categorized articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 13 June 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:Reggae albums by Puerto Rican artists[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for Reggaeton says that the genre is not to be confused with reggae (thus not the same genre) while artists/albums listed on this category fit the description "reggaeton". -- Lk95 8:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not properly tagged until 26 May 2020.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the lack of an overarching scheme for reggaeton albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:29, 11 June 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:Afro-Latin American[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. bibliomaniac15 20:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now, it's rather obvious that to anyone outside of the USA and maybe Canada that "American" (and especially "Latin American") is a term used to refer to people living in both North and South America. However, here in the States, we're special and also use it for our country's demonym (Americans).
Cool. So why bring this up now? Well, Category:Afro-Latin American is currently being used to sort American Afro-Latino (ie. USA) and Afro-Latin Americans. I think it would probably be for the best if we did a soft split for Americans of the USA and everyone else.
I bring this up because I noticed Medaria Arradondo is currently categorized as Afro-Mexican when he really should be categorized as Category:Afro-Latin American (United States), Category:American people of Mexican descent, and Category:African-American police officers. He's pretty obviously not a citizen of Mexico.
My heart isn't dead set on the name though. If people want it to match the parent article, that's good with me as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, is there a distinct Afro-Latin American ethnic community in the United States? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Yes? Well, yes and no. It's a thing, but it's still in progress. If you search for "afro-latinx" (which is pretty much an US American-exclusive term), you'll see what I mean. It's definitely been a term used by Afro-Dominicans within the United States (ref), but it could apply to a lot of other groups (like Afro-Puerto Ricans). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be sure, this is meant as keep (do not split). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this tree is little more than a collection of categories for mostly biography articles sorted and ghettoized by race, ethnicity, and nationality intersections. WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reacting) Deletion is only meaningful if the subcategories are deleted as well. In the current situation it is a valid container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 13 June 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:Circular ISO redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Circular ISO redirects

Category:World Figure Skating Hall of Fame inductees[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 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
The World Figure Skating Hall of Fame isn't officially an Olympic hall of fame but it sure looks like one in practice: 70 of the 93 articles in this category are already somewhere under Category:Olympic figure skaters and another 7 8 have other Olympic connections, mostly coaches: A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. (The remaining 16 15 articles are already well categorized: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Being in the Olympics for figure skating is definitely defining but getting this award later for the same earlier effort is not remotely defining for Robin Cousins, Lyudmila Pakhomova, or Kurt Browning. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 10 June 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:WCW Hall of Fame[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 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT)
The WCW Hall of Fame existed from 1993-1995 to recognize professional wrestlers from World Championship Wrestling and it's predecessors. The award was a televised segment within the annual pay-per-view event, Slamboree. In the articles, this is typically listed among other honors and doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in this former award. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 10 June 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:Cox Television[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This used to be the category for the Cox Television station group, now Cox Media Group. Moving out the active TV stations left a series of misfit articles, most of which were related to the cable company Cox Communications, which does not have a category. (Cox Television and Cox Communications were/are separate businesses under the same family.)

I have prodded one article for not meeting the GNG; Miami Valley Channel would be moved out; and Cox Communications, YurView Arizona, YurView Louisiana, and Digital Max—all articles related to Cox Communications—would be moved in. Raymie (t • c) 21:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:44, 10 June 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_June_10&oldid=966263548"