Category talk:Malcolm X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Categorization of this category[edit]

@Grutness: Please see WP:EPONCAT, which says:

If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category.

The articles in Category:Malcolm X are not members of the larger categories I removed. As I wrote in my edit summary, some of those categories may be appropriate for Malcolm X, but they are not appropriate here. (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Grutness is a registered user and seems to be protecting this category by anonymous deletionists. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Is that your way of saying you can't understand WP:EPONCAT? (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I *was* protecting from what I *thought* was vandalism. I was pointed to a guideline page that indicated that the anon editor was in the right, though - which is why I both stopped reverting and stopped pursuing the matter. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, Grutness. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Face-smile.svg (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 :) Grutness...wha? 10:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Grutness the guideline does not apply. The articles of this eponymous category also belong to the parent categories listed under the article Malcolm X. The effect of the vandalism from the anonymous user is that this category is now invisible, useless, and in danger of deletion. Dimadick (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dimadick:, I've tried to be very patient with you. Please read WP:Vandalism and learn how to distinguish between what is and what is not vandalism. (Hint: Nothing I've done could reasonably be considered vandalism.)
It would also be helpful if your argument was based on the guideline instead of... well, nonsense. The articles in this category simply do not belong in the categories you keep adding. For example, Alex Haley, George Breitman, and Rowena Moore were not religious leaders (from Michigan, Nebraska, or New York City). They were not former members of the Nation of Islam or religious leaders of the group. The Audubon Ballroom and Masjid Malcolm Shabazz are not people, so they certainly don't belong in those categories. Finally, Malcolm X was dead before the Black Power movement got off the ground -- by what stretch of the imagination is that an applicable category, even for the biographical article about Malcolm X? (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The eponymous categories should list all qualities of the character biography, not only the individual articles. The article on Black Power devotes an entire paragraph to Malcolm X and traces the origin of the concept to 1959. Malcolm died in 1965, so it precedes his death.

I have already read WP:Vandalism. It specifically includes "any ...removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." and "illegitimately blanking pages". Exactly what you are doing when you leave only useless "Hidden categories" as parent categories. Most readers can not see them and can not locate the category. Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the only things you're capable of doing are assuming bad faith, name-calling, and edit-warring. I'm afraid I can't discuss something with an editor who is unwilling or unable to read and understand the relevant guideline. I guess we'll need to pursue dispute resolution, because evidently not even the word of another experienced editor can convince you. (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Pull your horns in, both of you. @Dimadick:, EPONCAT does apply - it is exactly for this sort of category that it exists. The category is for items connected to Malcolm X, but includes a lot of thingsto which the parent categories you are trying to add do not apply. As the anon points out, the Audubon Ballroom - a building in New York - could scarcely be considered a religious leader from Nebraska. Neither could the Braddock Hotel, or many of the other articles. To quote EPONCAT: "If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category. This often results in the article and category being categorized differently." In this instance, the articles directly related to the person are not members of the larger categories - therefore it is only the key article which gets categorise, not the whole category. BTW, I've protected the category for the time being - editwarring helps no-one... Dimadick, you have now broken 3RR on this category twice, and the anon has once. Unless you both want longer blocks, stop this fighting now. Grutness...wha? 10:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness:, how did I break 3RR on this category twice? I have not edited this category since the edit war on December 15. I only replied in the talk page.

And by this reasoning we should empty categories like Category:Cities in New York because not all the articles in the subcategories are in fact cities. The category about religious leaders directly applies to Malcolm X himself. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Uhhh. Apologies to both of you. I misread the dates - mea culpa. You just 3RR'd once. Yu still both need to pull your horns in though - trading insults never solved any dispute. I've unprotected the cat (NOT an excuse for starting up again...)
As far as your comparison is concerned, "Cities in New York" is not a category about a person, so isn't covered by EPONCAT. Though i'm not au fait with all the reasons why EPONCAT is different, a lot of them make sense. A building in a city in New York City is still a feature of a city in New York, so it makes a certain amount of sense for it to be in the parent cat. Certainly a lot more sense than a building in New York City where a religious leader was assassinated being considered a specific feature of a religious leader from Nebraska. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)