Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 21 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 5 October 7 >

October 6

[edit]

Category:Sankethi people

[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) 00:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Sankethi people are a subcaste of Brahmins. We do not categorise people by caste and this serves no purpose. Sitush (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and undo depopulation. Sankethi people are a community with their own language, culture and traditions. It is no different to having a category of Flemish people, Cornish people or Tulu people. When sources discuss notable people who identify with this community, they mention that person is Sankethi, which shows that the sources disagree that it serves no purpose (e.g. R. K. Srikantan's obituary in The Hindu). The article does not support the claim that the Sankethi are a caste, and even if they are, that does not warrant the depopulation of the category (which has already happened) and its deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brahmins are a caste, but Sankethis are an ethnolinguistic group. The CfD that your user subpage links to specifically addresses this distinction and says that the decision not to categorise by caste does not extend to ethnolinguistic groups. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is described as a caste all over the place, as my very random and not-all-reliable selection above indicates. Are you thinking that there are only 4 castes, ie: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, with everyone else being outside? That is not how this longstanding consensus works and there have been plenty of Brahmin-related categories of this type deleted in the past even before I took an interest. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost any ethnic/socio-economic group can be considered a caste in India, and anyone can start a culural association, but the Castcats link you posted above shows that we draw the line at ethnolinguistic groups. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not getting drawn any further into the definition of caste. I refer you again to the obvious: sources, including academic ones such as the sociologists Rao, refer to them as one. - Sitush (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 700 government-recognised dialects and languages in India. We should treat this community as most sources treat them, which is as a caste. As soon as the word "Brahmin" appears in an article, the assumption is that they are a caste and pretty much every Brahmin community does in fact append Brahmin to their name, which is not what happens for, say, Shudra communities. Brahmins are high-status and like to show it; Shudras are low-status and prefer not to mention it. We would likely end up in a situation where Brahmin people can be categorised but none of the other communities generally considered to be castes would get the same treatment, which would pour fuel on the "them and us" fire.
As far as I am aware, most Brahmins also speak the common local language (Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu etc) and many are familiar with Sanskrit because of their historic role as priests. If we go down the road of making an exception to the "do not categorise by caste" consensus here then I suspect it will open the floodgates for yet more anti-Brahmin POV pushers in what is already a highly disrupted topic area that is subject to ArbCom sanctions etc. And they would have a point. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been established in the CfD you link from your user subpage that there is no precedent to delete ethnolinguistic categories, so we do not need to create any new exemptions. All the categories that have been deleted under the precedent have been non-ethnolinguistic groups like Category:Nair people and Category:Goud people, whereas Category:Marwari people was specifically noted to be outside this (despite the group being described as a caste by sources like Surjit Mansingh and Stanley Kochanek).
You seem to be saying that Brahmins use the local language and have knowledge of Sanskrit, and this makes ethnolinguistic categories problematic, but I do not understand your reasoning. That most Brahmins speak the common local language shows that there is little room for abuse of ethnolinguistic categories.
The first part about Brahmin and Shudra people and their names is not really relevant to this discussion because no-one is suggesting making indiscriminate caste lists against existing consensus. I have also never come across anyone who appends Brahmin to their name, but I am not sure how that could be relevant either way. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (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:Professional sports leagues in Lebanon

[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: Speedy delete per creator request. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lebanon does not have a professional football league, I have created the category by mistake. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (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 from Shadwell, Leeds

[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) 00:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Shadwell, West Yorkshire. I however noticed that this was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 29#Category:People from Shadwell, West Yorkshire so can't use C2D. Per WP:UKPLACE Shadwell isn't unquestionably within the settlement of Leeds, even though it might sometimes be though of as being part of it. The article was renamed back in 2009 before the exception was even included about using city/town to disambiguate when unquestionably within it. However as the exception added in 2010 doesn't appear to include Shadwell it should still be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2018 (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:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles

[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:  Relisted at 2018 OCT 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Container categories? Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The exact meaning of this category is unclear, but it certainly isn't the same thing as container categories. For example, categories for dab/talk pages should not contain articles but are not necessarily container categories. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous CFD had a more detailed rationale. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as afaics this category is confusing without being useful for anything. It's confusing because it's not clear whether it's supposed to be for categories that shouldn't contain articles or only for articles that shouldn't directly contain articles. This category doesn't (e.g. from looking at inlinks to it) appear to be being used in any processes. I haven't found this category useful (e.g. when creating User:DexDor/NSCat). DexDor (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is certainly confusing. Category:Set categories (which should be enormous but isn't) should be removed. There are categories of images and audio files which should be added. No idea whether it could be useful. Oculi (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (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:Religion in Bali

[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: speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1: withdrawn[1] by noinator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a developing series. Most countries have a series of religion-by-province/state/region categories, and Indonesia (population 261 million people) is quite big enough to sustain such a series. WP:SMALLCAT applies to "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members", and I hope that the nominator is not suggesting that Bali (population >4 million, 13.4% Muslim) will only ever contain a Hindu subcat.
There are also about 100,000 Christians in Bali, who can also be expected to have some coverage. It took me two minutes to find Protestant Christian Church in Bali and Category:Churches in Bali, and add them to this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per explanation from BrownHairedGirl, and also the point that many Indonesian items are at time small due to edit levels, and should not be taken as unexpandable. JarrahTree 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, @JarrahTree. It is indeed an area with low coverage on en.wp, so plenty of room for expansion. I also found an article on the local RC diocese and article on 2 of its bishops, so the category now contains 6 items.
Maybe @Marcocapelle would like to consider withdrawing the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is low coverage - and unfortunately low level of editing... which means that xfds come and go, and no one is around to defend reasonable categories and subject areas. JarrahTree 08:19, 11 October 2018 (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.

Southeast Asia up to 1500

[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) 00:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a pointless set of container categories. At least until the year 1500 the histories of countries like Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines were unconnected. For this period we do not have any articles across the different civilizations of Southeast Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and beg to differover details - from where I understand the history of the region there are very specific connections between southeast asian countries in the region for a millenia before 1500 - and also subsuming into the asia project was why these were created in the first place - it is hard to identify the very specific inter-country dynasties and former countries that reflect none of the current boundaries. I would be very reluctant to accept until the year 1500 the histories were unconnected unless shown a heap of WP:RS that can completely undo almost all the information gained in the years of my honours degree in asian studies, unless I have mis-read something here in some way, in which case there are quite a few former countries that have been inadequately categorised by the editors who created them. Also, from the perspective of south east asian subjects to subsume back into generic larger categories is actually more counter productive than keeping, imho JarrahTree 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I would be delighted to hear about the pre-colonial relations between for example the contemporary Bali Kingdom, Rajahnate of Butuan and Sukhothai Kingdom, since there is no information whatsoever about it in the respective articles. (2) It is hard to identify the very specific inter-country dynasties and former countries that reflect none of the current boundaries. I find it difficult to understand this as a keep argument because all that the nominated container categories do is collecting subcategories by current boundaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for your reply - I can hear your concerns, I do hope this not a two editor conversation. Hopefully someone else might choose to join in. CFDs like this are useful if more then 2 try to sort things out JarrahTree 10:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all -- This is covering rather too few countries to make a useful category. I accept that Asia is rather large. However some of the categories are based on current countries, which may be anachronisms at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - south east asia has sufficient number of countries and diverse and complex history to sustain the above items - and the larger asia category is patently absurd and basically non encyclopediac when not broken down into smaller components JarrahTree 08:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that Asia does not make much sense, isolating Southeast Asia apart does not make sense either since it was not a coherent region yet in that period (as pointed out above). Having a tree with global categories diffused by country is the least arbitrary way of categorization, and this category tree already exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2018 (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:Cultural depictions of people

[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:  Relisted at 2018 OCT 16 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which needs a purge due to extreme misuse. While it's valid in principle as a container for the subcategories that it contains, and the usage note states that "This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people", the problem here is that it's often directly applied to random individual films and television series and characters — but virtually every single film or television series or play or novel that exists at all, and every single character within any of them, is by definition a "cultural depiction of people", making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category. (For example, The Nanny and Everybody Loves Raymond and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, which have been filed here, are not somehow more defined by being "cultural depictions of people" than, say, The Big Bang Theory or Kim's Convenience or The West Wing, which have not.) And further to that, I've also already caught at least one example of a real person being filed here, on the trivial basis that somebody once played him in a film — but since a lot of notable people have been portrayed on film, filing real people here on that basis is also a recipe for extreme indiscriminacy. This is not a good basis for a content category, because it doesn't represent a point of distinction between the things that have been filed here and similar things that haven't — it's a valid parent for the subcategories, but it should not contain a random and arbitrary selection of individual works or characters. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An awful lot of the problems would be solved by renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of real individual people. I don't see a problem with say Rubens (film) being in a subcat, but clearly dramas about fictional characters don't belong, nor social/anthropological documentaries etc etc. Plus a clearer category note, & repeating for the subcats. Is this old discussion partly to blame? The current category note is certainly part of the problem:
This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people.
For works which are essentially based on real people, see Category:Works based on real people.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (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:Lübeck law

[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) 00:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename since the large amount of this category consists of cities with Lübeck law rather than articles about Lübeck law itself. When this category is renamed, the first three articles may be moved to the two parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2018 (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:Biographical films about Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch

[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) 00:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the films in the "Wild Bunch" category are included in the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" category so there is no need for it to have its own category. Nicholas0 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Category was not tagged for nomination, but now it is. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there were real documentaries rather than films passing as "biographies", with artistic license since the source material is a bit thin, then the two could coexist; however, since all the biographies are little more than cultural depictions, merge is the obvious choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2018 (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:Satire anime and manga

[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:  Relisted at 2018 OCT 16 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (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:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month

[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:  Relisted at 2018 OCT 16 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: If the observance isn't on the Gregorian calendar, it doesn't belong to a Gregorian month. 37.26.146.197 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Some of the categories were not tagged for discussion, but they are now. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2018 (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.
[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) 00:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and trivial category, not a defining trait. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2018 (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/2018_October_6&oldid=1073191829"