Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 24 June 2015

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20

Category:Morgenbladet

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Morgenbladet - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary tier holding only a sub-cat, which is already in the correct parent Category:Newspaper_people_by_newspaper_in_Norway. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 20 May 2015 (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:Gamergate controversy

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 12:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Gamergate controversy - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles to justify a category; also, a nondefining category for most of the articles likely to be tagged (Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games). Trivialist (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough articles to justify the category; this feels like bloat for bloat's sake. --Jorm (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only a few articles, not likely to grow, and all of them would be linked to from the Gamergate controversy article anyway. —Strongjam (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond SMALLCAT (which I find to be another convincing reason for deletion), treating this as defining for the victims of this campaign (the main other likely members of the category than the controversy article itself) is a non-neutral statement that these people are or should be seen primarily in relation to their victimhood rather than through their actual accomplishments. It buys into the "professional victim" narrative that the gamergate supporters would like to establish. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just bloat. What's next, a template? Neutrality^talk 01:07, 23 May 2015 (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.

2nd-millennium BC disestablishments

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 country categories to disestablishments by century categories, and to disestablishments by continent and millennium. This close includes upmerging the newly-created sub-cats Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Assyria and Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Egypt. – Fayenatic London 07:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments

Propose merging Category:1046 BC disestablishments in China to Category:Disestablishments in China and Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Asia and Category:11th century BC
Propose merging Category:14th-century BC disestablishments in Vietnam to Category:Disestablishments in Vietnam and Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Asia and Category:14th century BC
Propose merging Category:16th-century BC disestablishments to Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments and Category:16th century BC
Propose merging Category:11th-century BC disestablishments to Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments and Category:11th century BC

Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments by country
Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in China
Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Vietnam
Propose deleting Category:11th-century BC disestablishments in China
Propose deleting Category:1040s BC disestablishments in China

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article per category. After the merge there will be one millennium category with just a handful of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to centuries by continent articles (Category:14th-century disestablishments in Asia, etc.). I think it's worth keeping the categories in some form. They are underpopulated as there's nothing for the Americas at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to make sense. I am very willing to believe that you'll be able to find some more articles to populate this tree, but I really can't imagine you will find enough to decently fill 50 categories (5 continents x 10 centuries) while there are currently less than 10 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I still think we should keep the countries (or again, continents at least). For example, merge Category:14th-century BC disestablishments in Vietnam to Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Vietnam or to Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Asia. I think those get cut to 10 categories (5 continents and two millennium). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let's give continents x millennium a try. I have adapted the nomination accordingly. Good luck with your efforts to populate the categories! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom, but the articles also need a (plain) century category - a century disestablishment - category, if they do not have one already. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very right, thanks for your observation! I've added them right away. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2015 (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.

People of X descent

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. Strong majority of participants want some or all of the articles kept. p b p 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following categories:

Nominator's rationale: Assuming people have descent from such small, specific regions, especially those which are historical, is complete and utter overkill. Non-defining characteristic to boot. Stick to country (e.g. Category:American people of Italian descent etc.), nothing more is needed. Also noting a lot of these entries appear to be wholly unreferenced/OR. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support principle but please check if an upmerge to an Italian category wouldn't be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: - I would be fine with an upmerge to Category:People of Italian descent followed by deletion. Giant Snowman 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - To my knowledge, Corsica is French, not Italian - an upmerge would be a geographical mistake. Moreover, the Sicilian and Italian immigration waves have a different history. Third point: Arbëresh people are not Italian, nor Sicilian. Besides, why not delete "People of Kurdish descent" - should we consider Kurdistan also as a small, specific region ? Stefanomione (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanomione: - then simply upmerge Corsican to Category:People of French descent; but Arbëresh is an Italian ethnic group. Your comments re:Kurdistan are contrary to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and your comments re:Sicilian v Italian immigration histories shouldn't impact on categories. But what about all the other categories you have ignored? Do you not agree they should be deleted? Giant Snowman 12:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be kept - Should we delete / upmerge then Category:People of Scottish descent and Category:People of Welsh descent just because we consider Scotland and Wales "small, specific regions" ? Stefanomione (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they are actual countries, not "small, specific regions". Giant Snowman 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Wales are not seen as countries but rather constitutive nations outside of the UK (cf. Countries of the United Kingdom) and by the way Corsica is a Territorial collectivity. --Kiwi (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - successions and unifications of various city-states, regional-states, and nation-states, come and go... but diaspora, ethnicities and cultural identity are forever. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say that someone has descent from a region which hasn't existed for 500 years. By that rationale let's put everyone in Category:People of African descent... Giant Snowman 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Regional cultures in Italy are distinctive, so these are valid categories for people whose families came from those regions. If that information is lacking in particular articles, then those articles can of course be removed from the categories. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The question really is to what extent regional descent is of any influence on the course of life of the persons involved (hence on the biographies in Wikipedia). From what I saw, the region in which the parents were born (it was mostly parents), was a completely trivial fact to the person that the article was about, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Regional and ethnic identities precede the 19th century borders of the unified countries. Many of them originate from former independent states that got annexed. Dimadick (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: It is simply not feasible to assign someone a regional origin from 200 years ago - I mean where are the references? Giant Snowman 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - In the case of Italian diaspora, many people emigrated at the end of the 19th century, just 20 years after unification. Many brought their customs, language, traditions, gastronomic culture with them to the Americas, Australia or other regions in Europe. I also wanted to inform @GiantSnowman: that there is no need of reverting all my edits before knowing the outcome of this discussion. For the Corsican issue it's even more complex because many Corsicans descend from Ligurians and Tuscans, so upmerging the Category:People of Corsican descent to Category:People of French descent is reductive and Corsica only became French in 1769. Ultimately I think that the actual geo-political boundaries and national identity shouldn't interfere and globalize or homogenize with specific cultural backgrounds. Wikipedia has no political agenda. There is also a contradicting fact about Brittany/Bretons which is/are French since the 16th century but that is not thankfully mentioned here with on the other hand Sicily/Sicilians who is/are Italy/Italians since the 19th century for example and are not mentioned here by GiantSnowman. --Kiwi (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanet: - I mass-reverted you because your additions were unsourced. As I've already said, how is it good practice to assign someone a regional origin from 200 years ago? By that logic every biographical article should be in Category:People of African descent.... Giant Snowman 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - Comparing the African origin of human beings with someone's regional origin from 200 years old is a little lame... and many genetic mutations happened since (or specific traits or even disorders cf. Beta thalassemia in southern Italy or other genetic disorders like Gaucher's disease for Ashkenazis), your comparison is reductio ad absurdum. BTW you also reverted sourced material, maybe you were in a hurry? I think you should use more time to think and read, Wikipedia is not an essay due for next week. --Kiwi (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some -- I had to look up what Arbëreshë descent was. It is an ethnic Albanian minority, who entered Italy as refugees 400-500 years ago. I hear that the language of regio Calabria is incomprehensible to some other Italians. I suspect that some of the Sicilian descent is related to the Mafia, which is certainly significant. Italy was only united about 150 years ago, so that multiple ethnicities within Italy should be acceptable. The complaint here is of small categories. Alternative suggestion - upmerge all small ethnic categories by ethnic origin, so that we have one category Category:People of Arbëreshë descent, which currently exists as a parent to "American people of Arbëreshë descent" and the rest. It will also be necessary to ensure that an "American people" category is retained too. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now some specific categories may be overkill, but I can testify that the Sicilian one is not. The Arbëresh are not a regional group, they are an ethnic group in Italy who came from Albania hundreds of years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any placings of people in these categories without any mention in the articles should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the Italian regions I can see both sides of the argument and have no opinion either way, but I do think Corsica should be kept separate, as it is sui generis: politically French, but ethnically distinct (and closer to Italy than to France). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these and all other descent categories. The ethnicity/nationality of a persons great^n-grandparents is (generally) a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the person. See also WP:DNWAUC. DexDor^(talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet in the case of Mia Love the fact that her parents fled the dictatorship in Haiti only shortly before she was born and that her older siblings were still in Haiti when she was born is very important to her life history. Somehow I do not think one could argue that Desi Arnaz, Jr is not at all definable by the fact that his father was born in Cuba. So in some cases descent is defining. I think the problem is we have allowed it to be applied with no eivdnece of definingess, not that we have the categories. The link has to be more than a DNA sample study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mia Love: It may well be the case that her parents fled the dictatorship in Haiti only shortly before she was born and that her older siblings were still in Haiti when she was born is very important to her life history, but that she's a woman, married, parent etc may be even more important to her life history. We could have a category for all those characteristics (e.g. "People born in a different country to their older siblings"), but that would result in an article having a huge number of categories (several times as long as the article text) (see also WP:DNWAUC). The simplest way to avoid going down that route (recognizing that we're organizing an encylopedia, not creating a database of biographical details - cf WikiData) is to categorize only by the thing(s) that make the person notable (plus yob and yod which are a special case). Mia Love is notable because she's a politician, not because she's of Haitian descent. Wikipedia categorization is intended to group together articles about similar topics - American politicians is such a group (and fits below the category for politics of the U.S.). Whereas, Category:American people of Haitian descent groups people who are in the encyclopedia for very different reasons and puts them under Category:Haiti even if the only connection they have with that country is that a great-grandparent was born there. DexDor^(talk) 18:42, 21 June 2015 (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:Wikipedians in Copenhagen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians in Denmark. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in Copenhagen - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only user in category hasn't been active for 2 years. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Denmark. Note: it now contains 2 users. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 29 May 2015 (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:Cocaine sentencing

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: dual merge. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cocaine sentencing to Category:Cocaine-related cases

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Somewhat jarring current name, not sure whether it's ok in the legal context. The category content shows it's intended for cocaine-related cases and cocaine in law. Brandmeister^talk 11:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:United States controlled substances law, except for the movie. None of this is defined as cocaine law per se, it's search and seizure, mandatory minimum, and jury trial case law involving a controlled substance that just happens to be cocaine in the test case that made it to the Supreme Court. I don't think having separate sub-categories for LSD, meth, and heroin would be helpful for navigating court cases. (In contrast, marijuana legalization/decriminalization makes Category:Cannabis law in the United States a meaningful subcategory.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge to both Category:Cocaine in the United States and Category:United States controlled substances law. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge per Neutrality. It appears that this is a solely US category, though the name does not indicate that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2015 (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:1st-millennium BC establishments in Asia Minor

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. MER-C 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Asia Minor to Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Asia
Propose merging Category:5th-century BC establishments in Asia Minor to Category:5th-century BC establishments in Asia
Propose merging Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor‎ to Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Asia
Propose merging Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor to Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Suggest deletion and upmerge the corresponding Establishments in Asia categories. While it could be renamed (the main category isn't Asia Minor but Category:Anatolia which is for the geographic peninsula), I think it makes more sense to have it organized by the continent since there are no other regions at Category:Establishments by country or underneath the continents at Category:Establishments. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- though I do wonder whether we need to split Asia into a series of subcontinents. The problem is agreeing theri extent. Possibly South East Asia with the Caucasus as northern boundary, India (subcontinent, including Sri Lanka), Southeast Asia, East Asia (to include China), Central Asia (former Soviet republics, other than Russia), and North Asia (Siberia). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first consolidate and review how many contents we will have in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2015 (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.

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ==== People of X descent ====
+<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' <!-- Template:Cfd top -->
+:''The result of the discussion was:''  '''Keep'''.  Strong majority of participants want some or all of the articles kept. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 :* '''Propose deleting''' the following categories:
 *{{cat|People of Romagnol descent}}
@@ Line 142: / Line 146: @@
 **Yet in the case of [[Mia Love]] the fact that her parents fled the dictatorship in Haiti only shortly before she was born and that her older siblings were still in Haiti when she was born is very important to her life history. Somehow I do not think one could argue that [[Desi Arnaz, Jr]] is not at all definable by the fact that his father was born in Cuba. So in some cases descent is defining. I think the problem is we have allowed it to be applied with no eivdnece of definingess, not that we have the categories. The link has to be more than a DNA sample study.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 05:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 :::Re Mia Love: It may well be the case ''that her parents fled the dictatorship in Haiti only shortly before she was born and that her older siblings were still in Haiti when she was born is very important to her life history'', but that she's a woman, married, parent etc may be even more important to her life history.  We could have a category for all those characteristics (e.g. "People born in a different country to their older siblings"), but that would result in an article having a huge number of categories (several times as long as the article text) (see also [[WP:DNWAUC]]). The simplest way to avoid going down that route (recognizing that we're organizing an encylopedia, not creating a database of biographical details - cf WikiData) is to categorize only by the thing(s) that make the person notable (plus yob and yod which are a special case). Mia Love is notable because she's a politician, not because she's of Haitian descent. Wikipedia categorization is intended to group together articles about similar topics - American politicians is such a group (and fits below the category for politics of the U.S.). Whereas, [[:Category:American people of Haitian descent]] groups people who are in the encyclopedia for very different reasons and puts them under [[:Category:Haiti]] even if the only connection they have with that country is that a great-grandparent was born there. <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
+{{Cfd bottom}}
 ==== Category:Wikipedians in Copenhagen ====