Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13

Category:Coptic script

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. (
(discuss) 13:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: small category, only holds one article. – Fayenatic London 23:12, 13 November 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:Coptic-speaking people

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. (
(discuss) 15:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This only holds a container sub-category by occupation, and is therefore an unnecessary layer. The sub-cat is suitably parented. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 13 November 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:Archived files for deletion discussions

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) 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, given how a page is put into this category. A page is put into this category when {{
WP:PUF through Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Archive.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Stefan2: Agreed, so done. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by language and occupation

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) 03:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots more languages
Nominator's rationale: Standardised and clearer naming. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these categories contain articles about people, not articles about occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and Marcocapelle. Daicaregos (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, mostly, with a question. What practical difference would there be between Category:People by language and occupation and Category:People by occupation and language? The current categories do serve clearly different purposes, and I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost if given these ambiguous names. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 10:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 烏⁠Γ: The first will contain English-speaking people by occupation, the second contains categories such as Poets by language. Compare Category:People by nationality and occupation and Category:People by occupation and nationality (both are within Category:People by occupation). The first thing (X) named in the parent category (by X and Y) is the first thing named in the sub-category. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: My point is that the pair of names is ambiguous and imprecise, and that those who are unfamiliar with that seemingly-unwritten convention may easily be confused. I reiterate that I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost with this system. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom's rationale. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do they speak the language, or do they only read-and-write the language? What do we do with the ones that are literate but not verbally conversant? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no such thing as a "x-language occupation" and this will make it much clearer. I do believe that, in this context, "speaking" a language is generally accepted as a synonym for "being fluent" in a language. Obviously, there can be nuances of meaning, but that is true of almost every word in the English language. Deb (talk) 14:32, 16 November 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:Early Modern linguists

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. (
(discuss) 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: as envisaged by the category creator,
Justus Georg Schottel, Varadarāja) are all C17. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 13 November 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:Acehnese-language occupations

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 all. (
(discuss) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these should be a container category like Category:Welsh-language occupations, but there are no language-related sub-cats. In each case the only sub-cat is properly parented without needing this one. – Fayenatic London 19:55, 13 November 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:Prestigious boarding schools

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. (
(discuss) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty sure this violates our
WP:PEACOCK term in its title. Prestigious is a subjective term. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 13 November 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:People associated with the Whitewater controversy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (
(discuss) 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:BLPCAT
What's convenient here, is that these categories literally start with "People associated with..." and we have an over-categorization guideline discouraging
WP:BLPCAT issues. If you need to put a disclaimer at the top of the category saying "Inclusion in the category does not necessarily imply wrongdoing" to avoid libel issues, you're already over the edge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: Notified Funandtrvl as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 13 November 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:Hillary Clinton controversies

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. The broader complaints here carry little weight as an article titled "... controversy" is objectively categorised under "controversies" – not that this is a necessary requirement for categorising there. Disputes over categorising particular pages normally belong on each article's talk page. – Fayenatic London 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word controversy is loaded and subjective. It's use is questionable in articles with context (
WP:BLP mess. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete category - not only is it a POV and BLP issue to attempt to group together all the controversies around a single current political candidate, it is unnecessary (the broader category can include all things, controversies or not), a COATRACK issue as originally created (it listed everything negative that involved her, not things sourced as controversies), and a meaninglessly small category of only several articles once the impertinent ones were removed. I really don't think Wikipedia wants to be a place where negative information about living people is grouped together into their own categories like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that logic, everything becomes a controversy - as objectively people have different judgments about virtually everything, striking the word "virtually" when we enter the political world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13&oldid=1077828612"