Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12[edit]

Category:Sool, Somalia[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) 00:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article that this category is based on has been moved (per Talk:Sool,_Somaliland#Requested_move_5_June_2021), therefore this category along with the "Populated places in Sool, Somalia" category should be moved as well. Dabaqabad (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Tagged and added the populated places subcat, which appears to be the nominator's intent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with Redirects Per WP:C2D. The requested move was controversial and I expect it will remain so, but CFD is not for second guessing decisions made in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A proposal to provoke editing wars or vandalism. The territory for this area is not finalized, then neutral name is preferred. For example, Category:Sool, Horn of Africa--Freetrashbox (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to this alternative naming format as part of a new WP:RM or WP:RFC, just not in this venue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:C2D, this is not the place to re-do the earlier RM discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Somaliland has been de facto (though not de jure) independent of Somalia. Whether the former should be accepted as a separate country does not alter the fact that this is part of the seceded polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not just "Category:Sool"? Furius (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Furius: It's a disambiguation page. Dabaqabad (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sool is, but neither of the disambiguated things there could sustain a category... Furius (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is not controversial to say Sool, Somaliland because Sool is in Somaliland. The controversy is as to whether Somaliland is in Somalia, not whether Sool is in Somaliland, and it is not necessary to provoke controversy here by doing that. Would you be telling Scottish people that they must say Edinburgh, Uk rather than Edinburgh, Scotland or Irish that they must say Belfast, UK rather than Belfast, Northern Ireland? You would be provoking controversy in doing so. So why do this over Somaliland? Amirah talk 09:53, 16 June 2021 (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:Breendonk concentration camp[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 all using "Breendonk prison camp", so the top one becomes Category:Breendonk prison camp, and the speedy-page-nominated Category:Breendonk concentration camp survivors becomes Category:Breendonk prison camp survivors. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Category:People who died in Fort Breendonk Good Ol’factory concluded "a follow-up nomination may be in order". Fort Breendonk was a Belgian fort completed in 1913 and used as a prison camp by the Nazis and later by the allies. According to the discussion Breendonk was officially a prison camp (Auffanglager) rather than a concentration camp (Konzentrationslager). I therefore suggest using Fort Breendonk for the main category but Breendonk prison camp for the sucategories, which relate to the Nazi camp rather than the Belgian fort or the later allied prison. I am not a WW2 expert so I welcome alternative views. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Rathfelder, Brigade Piron, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Justus Nussbaum, Andreas Philopater, and Good Olfactory:. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems fine to me. Presumeably it was in the Nazi period that people died there. Rathfelder (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but support homogenizing to "Fort Breendonk". Fort Breendonk would probably have failed WP:GNG had it remained nothing more than a military fort. The term is a clear WP:COMMONNAME for the occupation-era prison camp in English as well as French and Dutch (cf 1, 2, etc.) and there is no reason to depart from this here, especially given that our article uses Fort Breendonk. There is also no serious risk of confusion in this category tree, and certainly not one that would be fixed by the current proposed move. As a side note, there also seems to be some dispute as to whether Auffanglager translates as "prison camp" or an "interment camp" in the sources. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It strikes me as quite undesirable to use "Fort Breendonk" without distinguishing whether the topic is the building's use as a fort, a prison camp, a prison or a museum. Without distinguishing, somebody working at the museum today could be categorised as "Fort Breendonk personnel" alongside Nazi prison guards. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but Category:Fort Breendonk prison camp personnel etc would be better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support in principle but this proposed renaming of Category:Breendonk concentration camp to Category:Fort Breendonk would be misleading/undesirable since the other proposed target names are in the pattern of Category:Breendonk prison camp xxx. The target name here should therefore be Category:Breendonk prison camp or all of these changes should be rejected. Hmains (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2021 (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:Songs with lyrics by Jack Lawrence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Category:Songs with lyrics by Jack Lawrence

Category:Jin dynasty (266–420) people related to the Three Kingdoms[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: split. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, the Three Kingdoms lasted from 220 to 280 and the Jin dynasty (266–420) was the victorious dynasty of the period. The overlap between the topics is very small (only 14 years) and most people in this category are either related to the Three Kingdoms (e.g. because they were from a contemporary rival kingdom) or related to the Jin dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac and TSventon: pinging contributors to an earlier speedy discussion about this same category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Split the category seems to be unnecessary as it mainly contains people alive during both eras. Obviously some people were active in both eras and will belong in both categories. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TSventon. If he is right as I'd suppose split is unnecessary as it mainly contains people alive during both eras. --Just N. (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take e.g. Cao Huan, an emperor of a rival state. He really does not belong in a Yin dynasty category but he does belong in a Three Kingdoms category. Most articles either clearly belong or clearly don't belong to the Yin dynasty. And in the latter case, they belong to the Three Kingdoms. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (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:Islamic scholars in the United Kingdom[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. ✗plicit 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, if they are scholars of Islam (regardless of personal beliefs) they belong in Category:British scholars of Islam, while if they are Muslim scholars in any unrelated academic field they should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. The term 'Islamic scholar' in the English language, which comes from Ulama, the arabic word for scholar, commonly refers to Muslim scholars who have undergone traditional training in Islamic beliefs and practices. The category describes Islamic scholars who are based in the UK, whether or not they are British. Non Muslims who have studied Islam, as in a modern university course on Islamic studies, that is something else entirely. Why should there not be a category which describes 'Islamic scholars' as they are commonly referred to in the English language, Muslims who have undergone traditional Islamic training. There should be some way to distinguish those who have studied Islam as modern university studies in comparative religion from those who have undergone religious training which is traditional in the religion they follow. A YouTube search on 'Islamic scholar' will bring up many examples of videos which illustrate what I am saying here about the use of the term in common English. Your policy is effectively banning Muslims from using a term which they commonly use to describe a particular group of people in English.
You are refusing to see it as a term with it's own meaning and insist on analysing the meaning of the two words separately 'Islamic' and 'scholar' and replacing it with your own wording and then attributing a different meaning to it. Please try to see it as a term which has it's own meaning rather than two separate words. You wouldn't say to a Christian that they shouldn't use the word 'priest'. It is not the same but it is the closest example I can find. When a Christian wants to understand something in their religion, they may ask a priest. They go for religious advice to someone who they would expect believes in their religion. When a Muslim wants to understand something about Islam, they may ask and Islamic scholar. Although Islamic scholars are not ordained in the same way that priest are, the are followers of a religion who have undergone a specific type of training.
Some Islamic scholars actually move to a country in order to teach about Islam, as Christian missionaries do to teach about Christianity. There are Islamic scholars who moved to the UK to teach, that doesn't make them British, but they are 'Islamic scholars in the UK'. What you are saying is like saying there shouldn't be a category 'Christian missionaries in Africa' but only 'African Christian missionaries'. Can you not see that this means something else? You would be forcing people only to list the Christian missionaries in Africa who are actually African themselves under the category and disallowing a category which includes Christian missionaries in Africa who are not African. Why would you do this? Amirah talk 17:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That depends how you look at it. There should be category Islamic scholars and there should also be categories for Islamic scholars in other countries. Just because nobody has created them it does not make the category 'Islamic scholars in the UK' invalid. Amirah talk 19:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The head category Category:Islamic scholars should obviously be created first, before it is broken down by country. One would not start with Category:Anglican bishops in Pakistan for instance. (I see that AmirahBreen has been inspired to create Category:Islamic scholars 2 hours ago and will doubtless be working on Category:Islamic scholars in France etc.) Oculi (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are, I think, three independent issues to discuss:
  1. Should we distinguish secular academic scholars from traditional Muslim scholars? I agree, and in fact for secular academic scholars we have a tree Category:Islamic studies scholars and for Muslim scholars we have a tree Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. So we can create a subcategory Category:British Muslim scholars of Islam.
  2. Do we call the category "of Islam" or "Islamic"? I do not have a strong preference, "of Islam" sounds a bit less ambiguous, but fair enough if "Islamic" is used more often. It does mean the whole tree needs renaming, we cannot do that for a single country.
  3. Should we create a specific category for immigrants who have not acquired British citizenship yet. Frankly that would be a novelty. Normally we are not that strict with citizenship so if it is clear that people migrated to a new country we treat them as nationals of the new country anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. the whole tree does need renaming to the terms which are in common usage. ie. Islamic scholars. Yes, secular scholars should be distinguished from traditional Muslim scholars. Didn't I already answer that above? Scholars of Islam is more ambiguous, because it is less clear that they are Muslims who have been taught through traditional methods. That's why the entire English speaking Muslim community (as far as I am aware) commonly uses the term 'Islamic scholar' rather than 'scholars of Islam'.
I thought I had already answered this one too. 'British' is a nationality whereas United Kingdom is a geographic area, in this case a country. It is fine to have a separate category for a geographic area if there are enough of them in that area to warrant it. A geographic area could also be a region, county or even a city. It is misleading and maybe even insulting to call someone by a different nationality to their actual nationality. In the case of Muslim scholars some advice which they give to Muslims may be specific culturally, so a person may approach a scholar from a particular cultural background because the questions they have to ask is relevant such as if a particular cultural practice is compatible with Islamic belief. I will give taking part in a St Patricks day parade for cultural and nationalistic rather than religious reasons as an example. A scholar would be better placed to answer the question if he or she understand the cultural and nationalistic reasons a Muslim may want to do that. It is therefore not only wrong and potentially insulting to a person to categorise them as a nationality which is not their actual nationality, it is also misleading. Or a person may want to ask a scholar if a particular behaviour which is done in a certain country has it's roots in Islam or if it is a cultural practice, for example, wearing a face covering. They may wish to approach a scholar who who is from the actual place they are referring to and therefore would have experience of culture and traditions practiced there. Then why describe someone as British if they are not British? It could put people off adding non British Muslim scholars to the category and they are a valuable addition to the pool of Islamic knowledge in the UK because of their first hand knowledge of the culture and traditions of the countries they are from. There are also British Islamic scholars who are not based in the UK because in order to become an Islamic scholar they travelled to a country where instruction in their particular tradition is available and may have settled there for example. For this reason it makes sense to have a category for Islamic scholars in the Uk and also British Islamic scholars. There will be some overlap between the two categories, but they are still two separate categories with different meanings. Amirah talk 20:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean you need to repeat your arguments. All I meant to say is: (1) can be fixed easily, now or afterwards, so that should not delay the nominated merge; (2) concerns a rename discussion for the whole tree of the merge target and should be discussed in a broader CfD nomination, hence this should also not delay the nominated merge; and only (3) is a real point of disagreement for this discussion. I would alternatively suggest to merge manually, purging people who really can't be considered to be British and delete the category afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to illustrate that the discussion of "British" versus "in the UK" is largely a non-discussion, here is an overview of the articles in the category. We would only need to purge 3 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article Article summary British category?
Khurshid Ahmad (scholar) Pakistani, has been a research scholar at the University of Leicester, not sure for how long no
Muhammad Abdul Bari British yes
Yasser Al-Habib Kuwaiti, gaining an asylum in United Kingdom which is his place of residence since 2004 yes
Haitham al-Haddad British yes
Joel Hayward British yes
Musharraf Hussain British-Pakistani yes
Mufti Saiful Islam born in Dubai, Saiful Islām's father decided to take the family to the UK when he was 7 years old yes
Amer Jamil born in Glasgow, citizenship Scottish yes
Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari British yes
Muhammad Mojlum Khan British yes
Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera graduated at Darul Uloom Bury ?
Ajmal Masroor British yes
Rebecca Masterton British yes
Ibrahim Mogra born into a family of Gujarati Indian origin and emigrated to the UK at the age of 18 to study and settle yes
Yusuf Motala British yes
Marmaduke Pickthall British yes
Muhammad Imdad Hussain Pirzada Pakistani (not sure why he is in this category at all) no
Abdul Qayum (imam) British yes
Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari British yes
Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq British yes
Timothy Winter English yes
If there are three Islamic scholars who are based in the UK and they are not British, then it is not a non-discussion to create a category which they can be included in without inaccurately presenting them as a different nationality to their actual nationality. Marcocapelle suggested purging them from the list of British scholars, which would be correct, but creating a category of Islamic scholars in the UK to which they can be added is not a 'non-discussion'. There may actually be more, but as there has not up to now been a category which they could have been accurately added to, they would not be listed in one as yet. Also, if anyone can provide examples of the term 'Islamic scholar' being used to describe non-muslims outside of Wikipedia then I will concede that it may include non-Muslims, but in my current understanding of the term it is not used in that way. Amirah talk 13:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I remind you of WP:OVERLAPCAT: if two or more categories have a large overlap ... it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances. Note that it says "large overlap", not "full overlap". So this is perfectly applicable to this situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists would be better than nothing at all. Amirah talk 14:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see a real distinction between Category:British Islamic scholars, largely theologians and of Muslim religion (whatever sect) on the one hand and Category:British scholars of Islam, non Muslims observing Islam from outside on the other, which will probably include Christian critics of Islam. British in either case should refer to nationality or long term residence, which suggests that one or two of those listed need purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to merge the two categories and form lists, you would have to think of an accurate category name which includes the members of both categories, and it should also be as concise as possible. Amirah talk 15:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I've read the above and thought that AmirahBreen's description and analysing is the most differentiated statement around. We shouldn't follow Marco in merging those very different phenomena or sometimes academic circles. -- Peterkingiron seems to refer to comparative religion which indeed comprehends scholars that are regularly no theologians or imams /preachers and in rarer cases not even Muslims. --Just N. (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We'd get mishmash if we did merge it. Immigrating traditional Islamic scholars are sort of preachers or even missionaries, real academic scholars who graded from a western college are a different matter. Comparative religion scholars are most fulfilling the notion of an empirically researching scholar. --Just N. (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2021 (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:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Category:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company

Category:Films associated with the Bee Gees[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 and purge as nominated (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT)
The The Supernaturals (film) is in this category because a former member of the band almost scored the soundtrack, which seems like classic WP:OCASSOC. The other 3 articles consist of two movies staring the band and one fictionalized account, so they belong on this tree but there are not enough articles to justify a subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2021 (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:Films associated with the Beatles[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) 01:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2D and reducing the risk of later WP:OCASSOC
I assumed this category would be WP:OCASSOC but, after going through the articles, these films do seem defined by dominant cultural references band members, having plots based on songs, etc. The main article is The Beatles in film (and the sister category is Category:The Beatles and television) both of which are less likely to accumulate unrelated articles than the current name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2021 (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:Britons who assisted Jewish refugees to escape Nazism[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. Consensus determined that this particular category is not defining. Alternate names changed the scope of the category, which would have called for the removal of Hilda Buckmaster and led to it being emptied and deleted regardless. ✗plicit 06:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Britons" should be "British people" per C2C. I have brought it here as I thought some editors may prefer deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In principle I would not have an issue with the existance of this category. However it is not a defining characteristic at all for the one article in the category. The article should be purged, leaving the category empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this category is deleted, we will lose important historical context on how and why individual non-Jewish British people enabled the survival of select groups of continental European Jews by helping them get to the United Kingdom. The Category:British Righteous Among the Nations applies, for the most part, to a select number of British people who through force of circumstances found themselves in occupied Europe (including the Channel Islands) and chose to save Jewish lives at their own risk. It does not shed light on the larger subsection of the British population who, like Hilda Buckmaster, secured educational and/or employment opportunities for European Jews in Britain in the 1930s, thus saving their lives. Buckmaster did not save the lives of Jewish students from Breslau at her own risk in occupied Europe during the war, which would entitle her to recognition as Righteous among the Nations, but the effect of her action was the same as that achieved by individuals honored as Righteous by Yad Vashem. LadyAelfwynn92 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Buckmaster's actions would probably not qualify her for the title of British Hero of the Holocaust, the criteria of recognition for which honor are somewhat more elastic than those for Righteous among the Nations. There has been a tendency in popular memory of the Holocaust to focus on "spectacular" rescuers like Raoul Wallenberg, Chiune Sugihara, and Irena Sendler, and a corresponding neglect of more "prosaic" or "ordinary" forms of assistance for individual Jews before and during World War II; we still don't have a comprehensive account of which individual Britons, for example, served as guarantors for Jewish refugees, paying for their maintenance in Britain and their (hoped-for) re-emigration. LadyAelfwynn92 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else, if anything, can be added to the category? If there is nothing, why are we created a category of one? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's is a British award with a lower threshold that but Hilda Buckmaster still didn't qualify for that? That's not a case for defining-ness. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that name would be clearer. I don't have an opinion yet about whether receiving that award is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An advantage of my suggestion is that it avoids the question of whether receiving the British Hero award is defining. TSventon (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I favor deletion, if it is kept, I agree it is should be renamed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2021 (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:Joy (singer)[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) 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: She’s recently released an EP as well but there is no need for this eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' I'm not interested in this singer and wouldn't miss that category. But it's not about my taste. The category has as I actually see it ten decent entries and could easily have even growth. Why put it in the wastebasket? --Just N. (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reason obvious to delete a decent ten articles category. --Just N. (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's 6 articles, all satisfactorily categorized and interlinked. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard case of WP:OCEPON where the albums category and songs category are already interlinked by the templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2021 (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:Water polo players by position (and gender) (and nationality) (and handedness)[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: administrative close: categories were already deleted as empty. The categories' creator agreed to an alternate categorization scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: – for water polo players there are currently content forks to specify position, gender and nationality, for example Category:Dutch female water polo centre backs. As far as I can see this is very much overcategorisation, bearing in mind Category:American men's basketball players exists and so does Category:Shooting guards but that's where it ends, no American shooting guards either male or female. Similarly there is Category:American women's soccer players and Category:Women's association football midfielders but no more specific than that – not even sure there should be a Women subcat for the Position in soccer when there isn't for other sports, but clearly water polo has been broken down to even lower levels. As a less high profile sport it seems unlikely that there would be different categorisation rules than for other sports, and due to its lower profile it should be easier to amend the smaller amount of affected articles. Crowsus (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crowsus: it is not clear what your proposal exactly entails. Could you please format this nomination in the same way as the other nominations on this page? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, now formatted better, hopefully clearer. Each player should have a separate position cat, nationality cat and gender cat. To be honest I could do it manually, there's not a huge amount of articles and might be quicker, but I'd like to have some confirmation here that it would be correct to amend per guidelines. Crowsus (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crowsus: maybe you could do it manually, but you shouldn't. Mass emptying of categories is equivalent to deletion, and should be done only if there is a consensus at CFD to do that. Doing that without consensus labelled as "out--of-process", and regarded as WP:Disruptive editing.
    Also, in general I am strongly opposed to merges which replace one category on an articles with three categories. That creates a maintenance nightmare for editors, and category clutter to imped readers.
And sorry, but the formatting of the nomination is nowhere near where it would need to be. I have written more about that below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article Current categories → New categories
Example 1: Peter Varellas Category:American male water polo drivers

Category:American left-handed water polo players		 → Category:American male water polo players
Category:Water polo drivers
Category:Left-handed water polo players
Example 2: Liz Weekes Category:Australian female water polo goalkeepers → Category:Australian female water polo players
Category:Water polo goalkeepers
I created these categories, and I accepted the deletion nomination of them. Thanks! :) --Phikia (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted the deletion nomination of the water polo categories above, because I found that it was difficult to categorize the water polo players who competed before World War II by position. :) --Phikia (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will check the site-wide guidelines for the ice hockey cats as clearly this would fall under the same thing as water polo. Either position+nationality is OK for all sportspeople, or it isn't, I suspect the latter since other major sports do not have them. Will let you know, but certainly your water polo cats shouldn't be unfairly targeted if other sports cats are bending the rules too. Either that, or it is all OK and things like soccer and basketball should be amended to the same level. Still appears that the position+gender+nationality level for water polo is still uniquely and unnecessarily specific though. Crowsus (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. The nominator is evidently a nice person, new to CFD and trying to figure it out (they left a v nice msg on my talk) ... but I have to say that the nomination is a complete mess. It neither lists and tags all the categories, nor is it clear what the goal is. I know that preparing such a big nomination is complex, and that the software doesn't help, but this nomination is far too unclear to proceed.
Before I could offer a view on whether any of this is a good, I see two main issues which need clarification:
  1. Does the nominator think that water polo players should not be categorised by position? Or merely that categories by position should not be intersected with nationality and gender?
  2. Simply deleting the categories will have the undesirable effect of removing many articles from category trees where they belong. If these categories are to be removed, they should be merged to their parent categories, not deleted.
Also, it seems that the nominator is under the misapprehension that there is some overriding rule on how all sports people should be categorised. That is not the case, and it wouldn't be a viable proposition, because difft sports have different patterns, and because there is massive variation in both the global number of players and their geographical distribution. Instead we try to apply common principles, such as those set out in WP:OCAT, WP:CAT, WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through some previous discussions on this general topic and it really is a lot of inconsistent nonsense. This is a successful plea for a triple intersection for a cat set similar to the above due the size of the parent cat, but this was quickly upmerged due to the "common practice" despite there being 15,000 entries in the raw Association Football goalkeepers cat and nearly 6,000 Italian footballers. These water polo sets are not only WP:OCLOCATION but then go further into tiny narrow cats with the position divisions, which contain only 2 or 3 articles each. There's just over 2500 male water polo bios and just over 400 female. Dividing that relatively small number into such narrow subcategories is absurd. For readers, it's difficult to square how the hypothetical desire to know and see a list of notable Category:Italian male water polo goalkeepers (3 articles) is readily accommodated, but the same desire in respect of Category:Italian male association goalkeepers is an impossibility. And since there are no proper rules as to how these things are controlled, how the system is organised appears to boil down to The whim of some enthusiastic editor(s) anything up to 18 years ago vs Whoever has time to comment the most on one of these discussions, with any decision reached having no bearing on anything other than that topic specifically, and subject to change and direct contradiction depending on who is interested in the next discussion and which of the guidelines they choose to employ to support their argument at that particular point in time. But never mind, I'm a harmless idiot with a terrible suggestion and it's all a bit beyond me. So please close the discussion as you see fit as I won't be participating further. Crowsus (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a long and tedious exercise, but is the only way to feed the work to a bot. Perhaps the current discussion could be used like a WP:RfC to decide between the above levels of intersection, and then a separate full nomination can be made afterwards. Alternatively, if there is consensus here, the nominator and category creator might be willing to recategorise the articles manually, and tag the abandoned categories for deletion with {{db-author}}. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If there is no opposition, as the category creator, I will recategorise the articles manually, and tag the abandoned categories for deletion with {{db-author}} in a week or so.
# Articles Current categories → New categories
Example 1
(Centre back)		 Yasemin Smit Category:Dutch female water polo centre backs → Category:Dutch female water polo players
Category:Water polo centre backs
Example 2
(Centre forward)		 Igor Hinić Category:Croatian male water polo centre forwards → Category:Croatian male water polo players
Category:Water polo centre forwards
Example 3
(Driver)		 Filip Filipović Category:Serbian male water polo drivers

Category:Serbian left-handed water polo players		 → Category:Serbian male water polo players
Category:Water polo drivers
Category:Left-handed water polo players
Example 4
(Goalkeeper)		 Ashleigh Johnson Category:American female water polo goalkeepers → Category:American female water polo players
Category:Water polo goalkeepers
Example 5
(Utility player)		 Dezső Gyarmati Category:Hungarian male water polo utility players

Category:Hungarian left-handed water polo players		 → Category:Hungarian male water polo players
Category:Water polo utility players
Category:Left-handed water polo players

Thank you all! --Phikia (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done. In the last 36 hours, I tagged all the categories mentioned above for deletion with {{db-g7}}, and they were all deleted. Please close the discussion. Thanks! --Phikia (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2021 (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:Hospitals that took Katrina evacuees[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) 09:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT)
In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, patients at local hospitals were transferred to other facilities across the American south. This category consists of major hospitals across the American south, and for some reason their all children's hospitals although I'm sure the category could be expanded. We have Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic but that's for purpose built facilities. When there's a regional hurricane, earthquake, disease outbreak, etc. major hospitals take in patients; that's kind of their thing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category per nom (possibly listify?). Grutness...wha? 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the category contents right here so no work is lost if another editor wants to create a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesnt seem terribly helpful to have categories for hospitals that take people from particular disasters. It's not really defining for a hospital. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2021 (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:Children's Oncology Group members[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) 00:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Children's Oncology Group (COG) is a consortium of hospitals that treat children with cancer in the US and Canada and, according to the main articlce:
Almost all centers that treat children with cancer in the US and Canada are part of the COG.
These COG member facilities are already somewhere under Category:Cancer hospitals, Category:Children's hospitals or elsewhere under the hospitals category tree. (I had to go off Wikipedia to the COG web site to figure out what the subcategory meant but it is the "Pediatric Early Phase-Clinical Trial Network" which is also widespread.) A near universal membership doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2021 (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/2021_June_12&oldid=1074836656"