Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29

Category:Civil rights era African-American history

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) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current member articles cover events from 1958 to 1964. Match
WP:C2D , but I have only just put that page into the category. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 29 April 2014 (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:Veterans of the Battle of Kursk

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) 04:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain mostly/only articles about artists (e.g.
WP:DNWAUC. This is different from Category:Military personnel by war as that is for people notable as military personnel (it comes under Category:People by occupation). For that reason these categories should not be merged to Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II (although many of the artists are currently in that category). DexDor (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bushranger, your comments suggest a merge to
WP:COP#N so that it's easier to browse articles about people like Georgy Zhukov without the category being cluttered by hundreds of articles like Priidu Aavik. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If they're "Veterans of so and so", then Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II is an appropriate categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The military personnel category is under
WP:COP#N). DexDor (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And for Soviet personnel who served in the
Great Patriotic War, that service is very definingly notable - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It's not entirely correct to say "it's not describing current practice" - many Israelis, for example, have served in their military (as a conscript), but their articles (example) haven't generally been categorized in Category:Israeli military personnel or in a category such as "Israeli military personnel in the First Intifada". Just because there are some articles of type X in category Y doesn't mean that most articles of type X are in category Y (or that they should all be in category Y).
Sure, there are some (in fact, quite a few) people who are not notable because of their military service whose articles are currently in the "military personnel" categories; that's also the case with other occupation categories (e.g. is Rowan Atkinson really notable as a truck driver?).
We could make military service an exception to
WP:COP#N, but (1) if we make one occupation exempt from a rule then some editors are likely to want a similar exemption for other occupations (firefighter, policeman, lifeguard, plumber ...), (2) do we really want, for example, Category:Israeli military personnel to have thousands of articles about people who were a non-notable conscript for 2-3 years before becoming a notable politician/actor...?, and (3) any proposed change to COP#N should be discussed its talk page, not here. DexDor (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think "active" may be the key phrase here, rather than peacetime military service - I agree it would be a bit counterproductive to, eg, include almost everyone who was an adult male Soviet citizen, but active service in a particular war has been pretty consistently categorised in the articles I've dealt with, and I've never seen it challenged until now. For example, Category:British Army personnel of World War I currently has ~2500 entries; I opened ten at random - the last ten "A"s - and found only one whose military service was directly linked to their notability.
It would be worthwhile ensuring the policy actually reflects normal practice, and I'll flag it up there, but I think we have to have this discussion here if the basis for not merging the categories is simply "policy says we shouldn't". Andrew Gray (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people should not be categorized by battle/battle front, etc. Imagine, the average veteran of the US Pacific campaign and how many battles he (or she) could get placed in; cat clutter. If the main personnel are noteworthy, listify them in the articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't make sense dividing soldiers up based on a particular battle or front as it could lead to overcategorization since soldiers fight in multiple geographic areas. I would like to see the opinions of members of the Military History WikiProject on this subject, too. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 3 May 2014 (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:International Rubber Science Hall of Fame

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: listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: List created at List of inductees in the International Rubber Science Hall of Fame. – Fayenatic London 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received this recognition is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients - some of the articles in the category don't even mention the award (example). There is, AFAICS, no enwiki article about this HoF. If kept, this should be renamed to "... inductees" to match other categories under Category:Hall of fame inductees. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You could create an article such as
International Rubber Science Hall of Fame that includes a list of recipients. Advantages of a list (compared with category) include that entries can be cited, it can include people who do not currently have a wp article and it can be in date order. An example of such an article is Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (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_who_are_not_a_Wikipedian

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 action. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose, um, hrm.. What CAN we do with
    Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_a_Wikipedian
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted after a number of contentious discussions, the last one was here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_31#Wikipedians_who_are_not_a_wikipedian. And yet, in spite of it being deleted, it continues to exist in a sort of quasi-dead state - still useful for traitorous collaboration. Additionally, it is still filled with rebel traitors who openly defy the Empire and our laws. Is there a way to delete a deleted category - like maybe it needs to be disintegrated or vaporized? Perhaps we subject all admitted members of this category to tediously boring category diffusion tasks to atone for their crimes? How has this outrage been allowed to continue? I think we need to take a close look at all red-linked categories, and find out if the rebels are using them to somehow collaborate. I'm going to call Darth (he's a close personal friend) to see if he can't convince some of the rebel scum to reveal their plans. @Drmies: or @Dr. Blofeld: would be a good first targets - are they onboard that transport ship? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Few people know I was describing Drmies talk page when I said "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." So clever, to think we wouldn't discover your secret red-category network. Wait till Yoda hears of this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked at one user page. If I read the history correctly, it was added to the category before it was deleted. So why was the entry not removed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I've long suspected that certain "powerful" factions here have the ability to modify wiki-software towards their nefarious ends.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (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:Attack Attack! songs

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) 01:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member which is a redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2014 (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:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category for an article,
2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. That article was moved a while ago to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, per an informal discussion on the talk page, as a result of the evolution from 'protests' to 'insurgency' in some areas. For reasons that I cannot myself understand, this category was denied speedy renaming, and so I shall list it here. Notice that the subcategories, which I have nothing to do with, already use the newer name. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 29 April 2014 (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:African-American women judges

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: upmerge to all parents. The nominator and participants did not give any reason for omitting the third parent Category:African-American women, so the pages should go up into that one as well. – Fayenatic London 16:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been pointed out to me that Category:African-American women is a container category, so I will remove the pages that were merged into it. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is another classic case of final rung EGRS category which should not be created. This is a final rung of both Category:African-American judges, serving to potentially ghettoize women from men, and of Category:American women judges, serving to potentially separate African-American women from non-black counterparts. Neither of these parents are currently divided on any other criteria, and given the rich tree at Category:American judges I don't see any value or reason to divide these parents further. It's better to avoid such a triple intersection and upmerge to both parents. I'm also hoping that most of the judges within are already categorized elsewhere in the generic Category:American judges tree, but we can sort that out once the merge happens. If the intersection is of encyclopedic interest, we can give a category intersection link to the readers at the top of each page that will generate a full list of all people in both Category:African-American judges and Category:American women judges like this which gives a more accurate list anyway...Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do African-American women judges judge differently than others? If so, please cite a source. Otherwise this is impermissible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a final rung category. It could further be divided by location (from New York, from California, from Florida), type of court (state, county, superior), ethnic descent (of Jamaican descent, of Dominican descent, of African descent), religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist), sexual orientation or by which law school they graduated from and those are just some ideas that come to mind. What should be created is an Category: Male African-American judges. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, for that to work, you'd have to divide both the parents by those criteria. I note that the grandparent - the neutral cat - is very well divided by state, and other ways, which is why the parents of this one arent a problem. The other divisions of which you speak - eg religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation are non-diffusing so dont help at all for last rung rule. I really think it would be a bad idea to divide american women judges by state and african american judges by state that would require creating 100 more categories and recategorizing hundreds if articles JUST to keep this one cat which is a triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job. Category intersection can be used by anyone who truly cares to get this list rather than suggesting an incredibly complicated diffusion scheme just to keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Cat gender. —  dainomite   05:00, 30 May 2014 (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:Software using the CDDL license

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 all. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant acronym. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It may be redundant, but it is the scheme used by Category:Software by license. Like "ATM machine", it's simply part of the language, even if it makes English teachers scream. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Would prefer not to have "Software using the" on some categories and "Software licensed under" on others. OK with dropping license from "Software using the GPL license". 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Wickorama (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. —  dainomite   05:01, 30 May 2014 (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:Human rights movement in the USSR

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Can probably safely be upmerged to Category:Human rights in the Soviet Union, as there is a significant overlap and it's not clear how one would subdivide the content. (If kept, nominated category should be renamed to Category:Human rights movement in the Soviet Union so that "USSR" = "Soviet Union" per naming guidelines, but I do not think that that would be the preferred outcome.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2014 (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:Indian social workers

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. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Indian social workers and Category:Indian social activists are similiar categories. Jayakumar RG (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2014 (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:Daher al-Omar fortifications

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: listify and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name both has a clearer naming format, and corrects the name of the builder. The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 29 April 2014 (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:Fortifications of Switzerland in the 20th century

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 to Category:Fortifications of Switzerland built in the 20th century. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a categorisation we, well, categorise by; WW1 and WW2 fortifications are, but "20th century" is not. All contents are already properly categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I was looking at many castle articles, they were used as fortifications. For those, it was not clear that were for a specific period. Many are categorized in infrastructure but not fortifications. By country could be a useful tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Fortifications in Switzerland built in the 20th century as a subcat of a new subcat Fortifications in Switzerland by date of construction. There are a lot of fortifications in Switzerland, both ancient castles and modern fortifications each probably number in the hundreds. A chronological categorizations makes sense. Categorization by World Wars makes less sense than elsewhere because the Swiss have been building new fortifications nearly continuously up until the end of the Cold War.  Sandstein  15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to add "built", this is clearly meant to be when it is built, but is too ambiguous at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (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/2014_April_29&oldid=1090391617"