Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

Category:Hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church

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/rename. MER-C 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There doesnt appear to be an intended distinction. Rathfelder (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is agreed then these would follow:

If it isnt agreed then I think we should at least agree to have them all either affiliated or associated. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (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:Doublespeak Award

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. MER-C 02:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need whatsoever for a single article to have its own eponymous category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (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:IEEE 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: merge. MER-C 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to
b} 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I must have been mixing this up with another cat, because I was certain that a bunch of people had been placed into this category. As it stands right now, there's only the three subcats. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sure why it hurts having one more level of organization; maybe bits and bytes are getting expensive.
    fgnievinski (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2020 (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:American Medical Association 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. MER-C 02:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simply having worked for or being a member of the AMA is
b} 20:56, 2 January 2020 (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.

Bunch of journal/magazine people categories

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, please renominate separately. MER-C 03:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
many similar categories ...
    • I have argued for keeping this one, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename this Editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association. This is significantly defining, and the articles are all about editors. Rathfelder (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
b} 19:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you intend, for example, to remove Category:Playboy cartoonists from Category:Playboy? DexDor (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting
Oculi (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
b} 20:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
So put that one in
b} 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's just one of many such examples. If a (partial) upmerge is needed then that should be made clear (e.g. in the nomination). DexDor (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least some of these.
    WP:BEFORE behind it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Alumni and people are synonymous here. They're just people that wrote in those publications. Some were EiCs, which might warrants its own category, but it s not this one.
b} 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There was an RfC, to which I linked above, that decided otherwise for purposes of categorization. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that most of these are not at all defining, but I've picked out two which are editors of very high profile medical publications which I think are defining. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can have their own categories if it's particularly relevant (e.g.
b} 23:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Having written an op-ed for
b} 14:21, 3 January 2020 (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:National Library of Australia 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. MER-C 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having worked for the NLA at some point int your life is
b} 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The subcategory should remain in the tree, per Randykitty below. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2020 (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:Academic journal-related lists

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. MER-C 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
b} 18:04, 2 January 2020 (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:Category:Slovene ethnic territory

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. MER-C 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be revisited/deleted because it is misleading, i.e. not just Slovenian ethnics live in today's Slovenia. Btw. the category also includes Carinthia, Styria among other's, that have as weell not been solely ethnic Slovenian territories neither today, nor in the past (but as well Austrian, german, Italian, etc.)..... KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle but this actually concerns a fundamental question whether we should categorize territories by ethnicity or language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Did you not answer this question while posing it? Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/Marco. Categories like this also often cause categorization loops (Fooland-Fooish-Fooland...). DexDor (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ethnic territory" will lead us into a minefield. And territories dont speak. Lets not go there. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a POV irredentist category that can serve no good use. Out of a recent spree of similar Balkan nationalist categories, I have also seen Category:Bulgarian land which has similar defaults. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (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:Category:Polish-speaking countries and territories

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. MER-C 02:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containing only one entry, being as well even dubious, since the entity along with today's Poland is not, was not or has not always been a Polish territory or country, or Polish speaking territory, but German, Lithuanian, etc., then all similar names with categories could be put under every country, which formely shared an aboriginal part of the country before the massive border changes in the past century, even having large ethnic population still. KIENGIR (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle but this actually concerns a fundamental question whether we should categorize territories by ethnicity or language. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Irredentist POV is not the basis of Wikipedia categorization. Place Clichy (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Territories dont speak.Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rathfelder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (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:Lazarus taxa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Category:Lazarus taxa

Category:Catholic propagandists in the Balkans

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:Catholic missionaries in the Balkans. MER-C 03:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very narrow category may not be defining. Wrongfully applied to members of the Congregation Propaganda Fide (propaganda in Latin does not mean the same thing as the English coinage.) Elizium23 (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of talk page message
The removal proposal is very trendy

I have nothing to do with Catholicism, unlike the proponent of deleting the category. The category follows the factual about personalities. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2019 (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/2020_January_2&oldid=935041813"