Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

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

November 29

Category:Straight Wikipedians

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: administrative close: deleted per
G5. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Category serves no legitimate purpose and serves to denigrate Wikipedia editors who are not a "member" of the category, hence is effectively an attack page.
Talk 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We have a number of categories to represent gay and bi-Wikipedians and all that sort of thing. They're all so proud to add themselves to such lists, I see no reason to further discriminate the non-gay editors such as I. I cannot find a suitable page with which to merge this though I am game if one exists, as for renaming, well I am happy with that, we could do Heterosexual Wikipedians or something to that effect. Note that this has nothing to do with hetero pride and is not aimed at denigrating the community attracted to their own sex. --Amamamamama (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. Category is not very differentiating and it is also not related to a main field of expertise in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so you're claiming homosexuality and crossdressing is some "field of expertise" in Wikipedia? Well if so then it's about time my out-of-date people with conservative values became subjects of expertise. Just because our hormones don't go on turbo every summer by holding these so-called "pride" marches doesn't mean your and the nominator's lot have something to be proud of while my minority has not. --Amamamamama (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is just as heterosexual as you (presumably) are. He just happens to know a
Talk 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh right, know each other personally do you Dwpaul & Marcocapelle? I stand corrected then since you know each other well enough to know that the other is straight. Well, to each his own. But what I am doing is not pointy, and not a red herring. We have categories for gay/lesbian Wikipedians and to date, no argument has been put forth to warrant these inclusions. As such, the only way it can be known that a user is straight is to have a category. This was there is a three-course channel, the gay community can add themselves to the relevant category, the straight community can add itself to the relevant category, and those not wishing to disclose are welcome to their privacy. But the failure to produce a valid reason why the category should not exist leaves the nominator's rationale no different than voting to remove Male Wikipedians. So if you haven't declared female, do we just assume an editor is male? Of course not. It is ok to say you are straight in your user page and we don't assume people are straight just because they didn't divulge and a gay category happens to exist. My ideology allows for a full two-way system, those wanting to declare and those happy to remain undisclosed. --Amamamamama (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am the nominator (see above), and was referring to myself in the third person, since you used that term to refer to me. And my argument for deletion is clearly presented above.
Talk 06:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And my rebuffing of your argument is clearly presented immediately after. Your newfangled terminology "no legitimate purpose" is void of meaning and does not justify why it is ok to have the gay categorties, there are a handful of those if you must know. I am seeking just one for the other type of person. Nobody is forcing you to add yourself/ves to the list. You uphold your reight to remain silent on the issues concerning your personal life and nobody seeks to change that. My desire to be seen as straight will stay on my user page and I feel justified in the existence of a blue link with a rudimentary message on it. --Amamamamama (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "straight" is not a proper categorization. This is not called Heterosexual Wikipedians, and the meaning of "straight" is different in different eyes. Clearly Amamamamama thinks so, since he lists crossdressing separate from straight, whereas some people would consider heterosexual crossdressers to be straight. "straight" is highly ambiguous and not a useful categorization due to its ambiguity. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, straight is ambig, have it moved to Hetero then. --05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please check
    WP:USERCAT and you'll see that both arguments I listed above are mentioned here. The proposed category is very similar to e.g. 'people with 2 legs' or 'white Europeans' which both would also be deleted as a user category, while in contrast 'people with 1 leg' or 'black Europeans' (maybe phrased differently) might be appropriate user categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I had read that page and I saw the examples. Obviously the existence of the gay groupings means being hetero is not all-inclusive and it is not vague either. But even those instances provided, the question isn't whether we should have Black Italians and White Italians at the same time, it is about whether skin tone here is necessary when giving country of background. If so, have them both, if not, don't have any. I will happily accept the deletion of Straight Wikipedians on the premise that all gay-related categories be removed. --Amamamamama (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, textbook
    talk) 16:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not as big as the
WP:POINT made by those allegedly proud to be gay. --Amamamamama (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"Victimize"? Yeah, poor victimized straight people. They cannot catch a break.
talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Being a dominant or majority group doesn't preclude an action of victimisation. That's a formal fallacy. SFB 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought there was consensus about the fact that categories like these are supposed to support collaboration on main topics in Wikipedia and should not just be identity-based. Christianity is a main topic in Wikipedia, so a user category should be permitted, although I can imagine you have doubts about the actual usage. Straightness isn't a main topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Does that category look like anything other than an identity one? I entirely disagree about such categories being allowable if that identity is a "main topic". This logic effectively excludes minority user groups from enjoying the same rights as majority identity ones. FYI, I have no stated interest in any of these groups, but I'd like to force the larger discussion of whether non-collaboration user categories are a good idea or not. Picking off only the weak outlying user groups simply undermines those user groups' sense of belonging to the wider Wikipedia project (frankly a self-destructive act). SFB 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect that minority groups are more often subject of (academic and newspaper) interest than majority groups so they would have easier possibility to form user groups here. The discussion above about gay versus straight illustrates this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 2 December 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:Bishops of Egypt

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) 00:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category needs specification of 'Anglican' in order to clarify the difference with bishops of other denominations in Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If Anglicanism is the only form of Christianity then it is an irrelevant addition, if there are other denominations to have Bishops then they equally belong to the category because Bishop of Egypt wouldn't be a specific title. --Amamamamama (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are (or were) Anglican, Coptic Orthodox, Coptic Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Latin bishops in Egypt. They do not have the exact title 'bishop of Egypt' but still I think this is ambiguous enough for a rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "Bishop of" is a specific diocese, and there is no other such specific diocese. Establishing this principle would cause systemtic changes to the bishops hierarchy and shouldn't be done on the basis of this one case. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one should never have been let through, and I'm sorry I missed it. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must have misread the nomination or have mistyped my original vote. This clarifies what is actually being categorized since the other denominations would make the contents unclear.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename highly ambiguous, any bishop serving a diocese located in Egypt would be a "bishop of Egypt" and the category name cannot separate out that particular difference. Category:Bishops of the Anglican Diocese of Egypt would solve the ambiguity, and any ambiguities with bishops from Egypt. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not so. "Bishop of Egypt" means that the bishop is the titular bishop of the Diocese of Egypt, and only the Anglicans have such a diocese. The Bishop of Maryland is in Maryland, but there there are other Episcopal bishops in Maryland (Easton and Washington), never minding the Catholic and Orthodox bishops. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That some of us state the same thing means the category is ambiguous. I said "bishop of Egypt" not "Bishop of Egypt" for a reason, there is no separation for lowercase "b" in this category name, making it generic, it can be used in the generic, following the rules of English grammar. The category description does not show up in categorization tools. A category description can define the scope of a category but does not help in its naming ambiguity, such as with Category:Egyptian bishops From these Catholic websites [1][2] it claims to have "Bishops of Egypt" listed from the page title. And then there's this letter [3] from the Council of Serdica referring to the "Bishops of Egypt", clearly long before Anglicanism was estalished, which uses the term in the generic. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. The distinction can be explained in the text of the category page. Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. By all means use the category page to resolve ambiguities of category definition. It's there to make things clear. Evensteven (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mangoe: Could you please elaborate why you say that this principle would cause systematic changes to the bishops hierarchy? I mean, there's actually numerous Bishops categories in Wikipedia that have a category name starting with the denomination, like Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Kerry and Category:Lutheran bishops of Linköping, so why would this hurt? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every US state has a "Bishop of {state}", where said bishop is in
ECUSA
. There is almost never a Roman Catholic bishop of a similar name, because their dioceses are named after the city containing the episcopal seat. However, in about half the states there is more than one Episcopal diocese. Following the convention you are proposing by example, we would introduce another level of hierarchy which at present isn't needed.
Ireland is an unusual case because the names of the Anglican and Catholic dioceses are largely the same, not to mention that the dioceses have been consolidated in various different ways to help confound matters. It's necessary for the msot part to distinguish between the Anglican and Catholic bishops. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note though that the proposal does not concern the USA so there are no specific USA conventions involved or applicable. Please also note that the proposal does not introduce another level (since it is just a rename proposal). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns the USA because someone could come along and propose similar changes there on the precedent of this proposal, should it be consummated. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way, which is to read a note in the category! And really, John, given the level of coverage typical for this sort of thing, if anyone else had a Diocese of Egypt, surely we would have already recorded that. I do not recall ever hearing of Pentecostals designating anyone a Bishop of anything, for that matter. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. I understand the case against. The websites cited each only contribute slight weight against the current name, but they do mount up as evidence that the current name is unnecessarily ambiguous. Responding to Peterkingiron's suggestion: lowercase "bishops" follows the majority of precedents in other places, e.g. 5 out of 6 similar cases within Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Europe. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to
    Anglican Diocese of Egypt. I oppose any continuation of the problematic and easily avoided "Bishop of Egypt" phrasing. @Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, and Mangoe: I think this solution incorporates all your positions and desires. SFB 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would prefer my suggestion, but would not object to SFB's. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer my original proposal (is shorter, and lowercase per Fayenatic london), then Peterkingiron's (equally short), but would not object to SFB's as a third preference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 1 January 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:Operas by Mikhail Matyushin

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. (Just a note on the exception in
WP:SMALLCAT. At least as it applies to albums, the guideline has not been interpreted as "presuming the possibility of at least a few members". It has been interpreted as allowing for the creation of an albums category even if an artist is dead and only produced one album. I suppose the debate here is whether that same interpretation should apply to opera categories, and there was no consensus on that point.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless. There is only one opera by him. Smerus (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So could you please explain (once more) what makes a one-member category useful? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle; violates
WP:SMALLCAT. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't prohibit these categories but provides a rationale for having them: … such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme …. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline presumes the possibility of at least "a few members", which appears to preclude categories with one member with no possible potential for growth (because the artist is long dead). Also, Marcocapelle has a question above. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read the text; 1 is a subset of "a few". I don't know how make my point any clearer, so I'll write more slowly: This category, and the others mentioned at WP:SMALLCAT and in 'Category:Operas by composer' are part of an accepted large categorisation scheme. It helps those readers who navigate a subject through the category tree. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It helps those readers who navigate a subject through the category tree." That's something that neither you nor VdT had said before, and makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the key point of WP:SMALLCAT is whether categories "have realistic potential for growth", which militates against the argument "1 is a subset of 'a few' ". Also , the argument that "It helps those readers who navigate a subject through the category tree" surely should be tested against
WP:OR) - This seems like an argument of last resort - the one component of the category, the article Victory over the Sun itself, is anyway listed under categories Operas, 1913 operas and Russian-language operas.--Smerus (talk) 11:40, 3 December 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:LGBT-related documentary film stubs

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. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the community decided
talk) 19:14, 29 November 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.

Films based on actual events

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. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories only have one or two articles in them. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit into these categories; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates the categories, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this is really a point of discussion here, presuming we all agree that based on actual events should be a defining characteristic of a film in order to be categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And who judges whether it's defining - if you saw a film on some subject that was plausible and couldn't walk away knowing whether some "basis" was real, wasn't defining, right? In any event, these seem to be
    WP:SMALLCAT as currently used, and if "defining characteristic" is understood to be universally known, they'll never grow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 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:Spy romance films

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 17:53, 29 November 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:Dolls in fiction

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. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not populated, and I don't think that it can really be populated that much. JDDJS (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment scarecrows are not toys, but they can be called dolls. Underneath this category can be found Category:Fictional dolls and dummies which contains scarecroews. Other forms of dummies are also not toys, such as crash test dummies, which also appear in fiction (and a popular series of fiction featured such) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this is a reasonable high level category to create that has some clear descendants. I can see it easily being more populated with the content we currently have. Personally, I'm not sure where "doll" sits in the range of "toys" to "puppets". That said, the main Category:Dolls is under the toy tree at the moment. SFB 21:43, 1 December 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:Films about dolls

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, noting that the category now has 8 members rather than just 1. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment scarecrows are not toys, but they can be called dolls. Under the related category also nominated for deletion Category:Dolls in fiction can be found Category:Fictional dolls and dummies which contains scarecrows, and scarecrows are a not uncommon in horror films, so films about scarecrows could be added to the current category. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shall we now begin populating the category? Since we have many scarecrow film articles... -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 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.

LGBT films

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 (merge one). I have checked that they are all categorised in LGBT films by decade, but not by country. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories only have one article in them and at most, only have three. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit into these categories; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates the categories, I will withdraw my nomination. Note: Category:LGBT-related political films and Category:LGBT-related romance films are also in need of populating, but I believe that are several films that fit those two categories that aren't there yet, so I am not nominating those two. JDDJS (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination, assuming that these films are still in Category:LGBT-related films by country‎ (which I haven't all checked). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same problem as all "films about" and "-related" categories: how much about (or related to) anything must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Arbitrary and subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I don't think LGBT is a subgenre of any of these film genres – otherwise we enter the realm of this being a very subjective category due to broad interpretations of how LGBT-related these need to be. I agree with JDDJS's exclusion of LGBT romance, as this is very clearly a subgenre in itself. SFB 21:55, 1 December 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:People educated at Great Sankey High School

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, tending towards keep per many precedents. "Alumni" is used in categories for some countries, and "people educated at" in others, meaning the exact same thing. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Attendance of this school is not a definitive aspect of subjects. It is neither a key facet of the subject's notability nor a basic life fact (such as nationality, birthplace, year of birth, etc.). The subjects gathered under this category will often not have anything additional in common other than have grown up in the same area (which we already categorise by) and such material is much better treated in a list format at the secondary school's article. I think most of the categories under Category:Alumni by secondary school needs to be challenged. SFB 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the categories in
    Oculi (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep (possibly renamed). We have hundreds of categories for high school alumni. I see no objection to keeping this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is the distinction between "educated at" (commonly used with British school cats) and "alumni of" (commonly used in US school cats)? Does graduation matter (usual use of alumni in the US means graduated - current students and drop outs are generally not referred to as "alumni"? Does "educated at" include anyone who has learned something (which I will assume we use the reliable source of "attending" to assume that education took place) at the school, whether they are still there or dropped out or just happened to be there one term? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they all just mean "attended or attending". Even dictionaries of American English tend to define "alumnus" expansively, to mean a graduate or a former attendee. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 8 December 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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland

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. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete because it's not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category,
WP:OCAWARD. See relation discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_20#Category:Sashes_of_the_Order_of_the_Star_of_Romania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs
)
  • Delete More overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like all child categories of Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members should be deleted for this same reason, but there's no less than some 200 of these categories. Is there any way of tagging all these categories in an efficient way? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep It seems to me that there's a wider point here: the efficient linking of articles with a common feature (even if it's not "defining"). I have read the comments re: over-categorisation, but if I want to refer to a list of "Recipients of the Order of Fluff" (hope this doesn't exist!), then a category is easy to access and, more important, to maintain. List articles are often partial (by intent or otherwise), not an obvious source and could potentially be enormous (not all lists "add value"). I accept that this is an extension of the original purpose of categories, but hey! wiki evolves. Possible solutions: leave categories alone, devise a way of masking the display of some categories (for discussion), devise a way of constructing list articles from selected categories. In the meantime, rather than the "salami-slicing" way of picking off individual categories that offend, why not address the apparant need? In any event, the categories for deletion should first be copied to lists, preferably by whoever proposes deletion. BTW, the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic is described as the senior order of knighthood, so to delete the categorisation of its top grade seems ill-informed or perverse. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not answering this before. I would assume that article Gonzo lists the 20 honours of Gonzo and that each of the listed honours links to the page of the honour - see e.g. this example - while on the page of the honour a full list of receivers is being displayed (again, with links), so this is two-way already and I don't quite understand the problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your example, I followed up the RVO & the Order of St Michael & St George. Yes, I got to the article on each award, and, yes, there were lists in each article. There remain at least 3 issues for me: 1) scope: in each case the list was of current holders - what of historic ones? 2) effort: if I were drafting a new article or adding to an existing one, it's more effort to amend each of a number of odm articles than add to a category; 3) reliability: I may be a conscientious editor with spare time and the awareness that these articles need amendment, but do I trust that everyone else is like me? or do I just regard these lists as partial? As I've said before - the use of categories has extended beyond the original intention and that needs to be recognised. I am also unclear about "defining characteristics" - how are they defined? For example: most biographies now seem to be in categories that reflect years of birth and death and places of origin - are these "defining", is it "defining" that
WP:OCAWARD are definitely both guidelines". Folks at 137 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OCAWARD are definitely both guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Of course it's a defining characteristic for John Shalikashvili. It's in his photo. Why would it be any less defining than any of his other awards or decorations? StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that a photo with some dozens of decorations counts to determine whether one particular award is a defining characteristic of an article. And you're right, the same applies to every of the other awards. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I guess that's what I mean by "misuse" -
    WP:NONDEF was never meant to get rid of all award categories, and there has never been a consensus to do so. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 20 December 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:Archbishops and bishops of Vienna

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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split, C2C with other dioceses that have been turned into archdioceses in the course of time. See for example Cologne, Paris, Prague, Riga, Utrecht (all of them to be spotted in Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Europe). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As this division better reflects the role of the subjects and aids navigation in the bishop/archbishop trees. SFB 21:31, 1 December 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:Bishops of Csanád

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) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The diocese of Timişoara is the successor of the diocese of Csanád, per
Roman Catholic Diocese of Timişoara. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 29 November 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:Thai female models of American 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: Delete. Recently created and only a handful of articles so use the bot and no need to manual change. Most of the articles I looked at had good categories with the close of delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also for discussion:

I believe these are a case of

Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. These categories were recently created, and among them hold only a handful of articles. Comparable intersection categories don't seem to exist. Paul_012 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 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:White Citizens' Council

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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Citizens' Councils. However it that is deemed ambiguous, than it can be renamed to Category:Citizens' Councils of America, the networks name after 1956. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 08:29, 29 November 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:Roman Catholic association football players

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) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Improper intersection of sport and religion, see
WP:EGRS. Within Category:Sportspeople we do not have sub-categories by religion. Any members of this category who are devout Catholics should be categorised separately as Catholics by nationality, e.g. Didier Drogba is in Category:Ivorian Roman Catholics. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Catholicism has little to no relevance upon the subject's being a footballer. Upmerge to national religious categories where the article contains references for the religion. SFB 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial religion and occupation intersection. Do Roman Catholic football players play football differently than their non-Roman Catholic counterparts? What Reliable sources support that contention? And now someone wants to roll this up to Roman Catholic religious workers - generally, footballers play football - where the pray and where they play have nothing to do with each other - but others differ apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable intersection, also possible BLP issues. GiantSnowman 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- trivial intersection: possibly upmerge may be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really notable to one's career. A while back there was a similar discussion over Category:Muslim footballers and although I feel there was a stronger argument to keep that category it was still deleted so this one should probably go as well. If anyone is interested in that discussion you can find it here].Inter&anthro (talk) 22:42, 7 December 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:Deadly Avenger albums

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) 03:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink musical artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also only one article so negates any navigational purpose. SFB 13:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is the second nomination of this category (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 28#Category:Deadly Avenger albums).

  • Delete Despite the previous result, the article in this category is not a Deadly Avenger album but one mixed by this artist within a compilation series. Even if the Deadly Avenger article did exist, can the album be called a Deadly Avenger album? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 2 December 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:Vivekananda

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. I note that there are subcategories that will also need to be renamed. These could be done
speedily if someone nominates them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per Swami Vivekananda article move. In recent move discussion, it was found, "Swami" is necessary here. also applicable for the sub-categories. Tito☸Dutta 00:57, 29 November 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:1890s French film stubs

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are simply not enough articles to meet the threshold for this stub category. Given that Category:Pre-1900 film stubs and Category:Silent French film stubs are both underpopulated, this category should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to the other two categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 50 articles seems a reasonable amount. I was expecting it to have 5 or 6 articles before I clicked on the category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Georges Méliès filmography has lots of redlinks pre-1900, suggesting this could easily be populated with more articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 29 November 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_November_29&oldid=1138399865"