Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31

Category:WikiProject Inheritance Cycle members

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. Just in passing, there doesn't seem to be an established convention for this—some use "members" and some use "participants". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. Merge in either direction. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to participants. Scope is clearly the same. SFB 18:54, 8 September 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:Regions of Iran

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Regions of Iran there are currently only 5 administrative regions and they are numbered rather than named. So all the regions in Category:Regions of Iran must be historical regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 31 August 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:Islamic terrorism

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the distinction is between "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" -- do we really need separate categories here? If this merge is approved, all articles and subcategories relating to specific organizations should also be moved to Category:Jihadist organizations. GCarty (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with merging, maybe rather reverse the merge in order not to confuse the category with Jihad. Terrorism sounds as the clearest term anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is For the distinction between the two categories, read the main article of each. No argument is presented as to why these categories should be merged at all. Islamic terrorism is a subset of Jihadism as the Jihadism article makes clear. Hmains (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that much of the content of the category is about terrorism, apparently for many editors who categorize the term jihadism is ambiguous. The entries that don't relate to terrorism can be put in the parentCategory:Jihad just as well. To avoid the same ambiguity here, I would suggest to rename the parent into Category:Jihad (religious). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jihad means "struggle" and can be properly used for many kinds of struggle, not merely for holy war (or as I would see it - unholy war). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Jihad is not a form of terrorism and covers a variety of types of struggle. SFB 18:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also acknowledge that Jihad and (i think to an ever greater extent) Jihadism have become associated with terrorism in the last few years, as is also explained in Jihadism. In order to keep account of both the original meaning of Jihad and of recent developments, see my alternative proposal of two paragraphs ago. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jihadism is a highly loaded and problematic word. The original term, jihad, simply means struggle and is one of the pillars of Islam. However, it has been increasingly used by non-Muslims to mean Islamic extremism. I far prefer "Islamic terrorism" - it is specific enough given that various organisations have at various times "designated" organisations to be "terrorist". I would prefer Jihadism to be merged into Islamic terrorism. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Category_talk:Jihadist_organizations. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. I essentially agree with Hmains that there is a distinction. Jihadism refers to armed struggle or war while terrorism is a tactic that is often used today by most Jihadists. There are articles for both categories that clarify the term. Both categories are needed. The Category:Jihad is even more general as Jihad can refer to the "greater jihad" meaning struggle or "lesser jihad" meaning armed struggle. It is clear from English usage that Jihadism refers to that latter. Particular POV that reflects a limited usage of the word by some adherents should not be a determining factor. Sources use both terms and make a distinction in classification. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:11, 19 October 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:Khosrau II

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) 03:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:OCASSOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs
)
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:Worldcon Guests of Honor

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. Well, this was an interesting discussion if nothing else. It was very tempting to close this discussion as one that simply needed to be aborted because of it being hopelessly compromised by some obvious off-site campaigning/votestacking and possible sock/meat puppetry, but instead I've done the harder job of picking through the discussion, casting out the dross that needs to be tossed, and holding onto and considering the rest.
First, most editors (on both sides) who seemed to have a grasp of the issues involved recognised that
WP:OC#AWARD
sets out the context of what it's referring to by stating: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives." So I think it's fair to say that the rest of the guideline applies to both awards and honours.
Having established that and putting aside issues of how much an editor loves or hates this category's existence (which are largely irrelevant issues that far too many of the comments focused on), the issue comes down to whether or not this particular honour is an exception to the general rule in the guideline that we should not categorize by award or honour. To be an exception, the guideline states that the award or honour has to be "a defining characteristic" for the people who have received it.
I think that this is the real bottom-line issue here, and a surprisingly small number of the participants on either side mentioned this issue. Fewer still presented supporting arguments to back up their claim that this honour either was or was not defining. It's not enough to simply make an assertion about this—a user needs to explain why. On the "keep" side, there were some assertions that the honour is indeed defining, but apart from these assertions, no one provided any evidence that this honour falls within what is meant by "defining": "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having": see
WP:CATDEF
. On the "delete" side, some evidence was produced to back up the claim that it is not defining. For instance, a few editors mentioned that an assessment of articles in the category revealed that in a majority of cases, the honour was not even mentioned in the category text, and in other cases, when it was mentioned, it was not in the lead of the article or otherwise prominent within it, and thus, judging by Wikipedia's biography of the individuals (which should be based on reliable sources), the honour is unlikely to be defining for those individuals.
I find the arguments of those in favour of deletion to be far more persuasive on this issue. Some of them have provided some reasons to justify their claim that the honour is not a defining characteristic. Some of those in favour of keeping the category have asserted that it is defining but have provided nothing comparable to back up that claim. So I think it makes sense in this case to apply the guideline and to delete the category, since it hasn't been demonstrated that this is an honour that falls within the exception to the general rule. Or, stated another way, I feel that it has been demonstrated that this is an honour that probably does not fall within the exception.
Just for clarity (since some editors with a relatively low amount of exposure to Wikipedia appear to have been involved in the discussion), this closure not mean (1) that the honour is not a notable honour, (2) that List of Worldcon Guests of Honor should not continue to exist, or (3) that the honour cannot or should not be mentioned in the recipients' biographical articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: and Listify We don't categorize based on awards. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For info: There is now a list at List of Worldcon Guests of Honor. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which would have to be manually updated for every Worldcon, unlike a category which automatically updates and alphabetizes with the tag. Glennglazer (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does a category automatically update ? DexDor (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is much quicker to update 1 list than to update all the individual articles with a mention of this factoid + the addition of a category. (Of course one cannot add a category which is not supported by the text of the article.)
Oculi (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Previous edit 12 Jan 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep is an honor, not an award. Individuals from a variety of areas (authors, artists, publishers, editors, musicians, fans, astronauts) have been so honored and the category provides a concise methods of seeing who had received the honor. Even if it were an award, there are plenty of categories such as "Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film) winners" or "Best Actor Academy Award winners," so nominator's claim that we "don't categorize based on awards" is specious at best. Shsilver (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes when I need to look up a writer for research purposes this can help. --RainbowWarrior71 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No previous edits.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 2 previous edits in 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 1 previous edit.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Interesting, since I just checked a sample of articles in this category and found about 40% of the ones I checked mentioned this in the article text. However, I'd submit that if it isn't mentioned in the article text it is because most of them have done so much in their careers to merit this honor that the honor isn't quite as important as what they did to earn it, however, that would make the inclusion as a category even more important since it captures the pertinent information in a simple, easy to locate way for each honoree.Shsilver (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a reason to delete. This award kind of follows a number of awards which may well be defining. So this becomes just another award and is not defining to the persons career. If this is important, then retaining a list is all that is needed. Being an honor is very different then something that is defining. You need to show why this reward is defining to a persons career and that it is not anything but acknowledging that the person has received many awards. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is less than an award and is not defining.
    Oculi (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I'm with User:Michaelspag50 on this ... as an active fan who has been to two Worldcons, both in Toronto. GoH is an honour, accorded to someone prominent in the field who in turn makes a significant contribution to the convention by participating in discussion panels, expositions, etc; GoHdom is an important part of fannish culture. Brashley46 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last edit in 2012.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 1 previous edit in 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I disagree with this interpretation of "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." because this is one of those exceptions that the parenthetical phrase refers to. As noted, this is not an award, it is a defining characteristic of those who have reached the pinnacle of their field and thus is not in the ambit of
WP:OC#AWARD. Glennglazer (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 2 previous edits in 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 1 previous edit in 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- Since Worldcon Guests of Honour are expected to participate in the event and provide a talk or speech as part of their duties, this category is analogous to the List of TED speakers Kentpollard (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 previous edits in 2014.
    Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(Voted above) I still say, that this is in the nature of an award winner's category. I suspect we have canvassing here, of people who are not familiar with
WP:OC#AWARD. The Nobel Prize and awards by nations are exceptions. This honour is not nearly sugnificant enough to fall within the exception. Lists do the job much better, becasue they can be chronological. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 7 September 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:Norman and Medieval England

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) 02:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category spans the entire Middle Ages after someone added Category:Anglo-Saxon England to it as a childcat and actually I think that is fine. By renaming this category the naming becomes consistent with the rest of the Category:Middle Ages by country tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
  • Support -- It may be useful sometimes to split the English high medieval into Norman and Plantaganet periods, but there is no purpose in having a category implying that Norman is not medieval. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 1 September 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_August_31&oldid=1074812563"