Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23

Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian 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: merge the Greek Orthodox sub-categories to Eastern Orthodox. No consensus on the subject of deletion, mostly because it is simultaneously too broad (introduced late and well outside the original discussion) and too narrow (if your quarrel is with descent categorization in general, that's a larger question that needs to be considered together). A further discussion examining descent categorization as a whole would be helpful. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent to Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎

Nominator's rationale: merge (in either direction, I've tagged both categories), the two categories obviously have the same purpose. There aren't any other Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Levant than the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Really unsure about these. But note that apart from the named Greek Orthodox Churches, there is also Oriental Orthodoxy including the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Armenian Apostolic Church, which are also part of Eastern Christianity, though omitted at Eastern Christianity in Syria.
Now, we might want to keep the two categories separate but broaden the former's scope to Category:People of Levantine-Orthodox Christian descent, Category:People of Levantine Christian descent or even (more drastically) to Category:People of Arab Christian descent. Normally, we don't categorize by religious descent, but it seems alright if these are ethnoreligious groups. It would however be helpful to have a main article on "Levantine-Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christians". There is Arab Christians, and there is Antiochian Greek Christians but not much in between.
In any case, in the course of improving our coverage of these topics, this may be revisited. --PanchoS (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodoxy is not part of Eastern (/Greek) Orthodoxy, and (except for Syriacs) it is not Levantine either, so we should be a bit careful with merging too much at once. Some more difficulties to take into account: we also have Catholics in the Levant, and not all Levantine Christians self-identify as Arab. But the main question is of course: which group(s) are considered to be ethnoreligious descent group(s) according to reliable sources? As you pointed out, there is not too much information about that available. We have had a very long discussion about this more than a year ago, see here, but this neither led to consensus, nor did it result in a new or improved Wikipedia article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge then purge -- of the three articles in the target, two are Melkite Catholics (not Orthodox at all). I am not clear what language is used for worship in the Antiochan church, but even if it is Greek, are the adherents using Greek language in other contexts? I suspect that this is being driven by the expatriate subcats of the target, which I have not examined. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. By the way, Greek is the language of worship, but having said that, there is no guarantee that descendants of Levantine-Orthodox people still visit a church of the same denomination as their ancestors. The articles hardly ever touch that subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Eastern Orthodox is the more accepted generalized term. It excludes Oriental Orthodox, who are a totally different group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in order to add sub-cats to the nomination, and link to predecent discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding and tagging sub-cats on relisting:

Comment: see previous discussions: 2012 Dec 28, where there was a consensus to keep the Greek Orthodox categories, and 2014 Dec 16 with no consensus to delete the same. The nominator would not have seen the links to these discussions as they were deleted from the category talk pages by MaronitePride (talk · contribs) after a manual undiscussed merge a year ago [1] which was later undone. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without a Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christianity article, it's difficult to know what the inclusion criteria would be. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In principle merge. I might favour reverse merge rather than merge, but this should follow precedent. In 1914 there was a considerable Orthodox community in part of Turkey, but the outcome of the Turkish War of Indpendence was that the Muslim population of Greece was exchanged for the Orthodox community of Turkey, so that there is now a geographic gap between the Orthodox community of the Levant (governed by Patriarchs in Jerusalem and Antioch) and the Orthodox community of Greece. Due to the way in which the Ottomans governed their religious minorities, each denomination has become a quasi-ethnicity, so that these are potentially valid categories. We have main articles on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the Levant. These categories are their intersection. Possibly the target should be Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians of Levantine descent, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle religious/regional intersection but throwing in descent assumes this becomes an ethnic identity. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what religion one's ancestors had is not defining to people; otherwise nearly all Muslims in the Indian subcontinent would be Category:Muslims of Hindu descent, those in the Balkans mostly Category:Muslims of Eastern Orthodox descent, many Christians in Europe would be Category:Christians of pagan descent, and on-and-on, and ultimately the whole world probably of some kind of "Pagan or Polytheistic descent"... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos. Categorizing people by the religion/ethnicity/nationality of their distant ancestors is silly. DexDor^(talk) 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) It's presumably clear, from the quoted earlier discussion, that I wouldn't mind deleting either. ~~However, this nomination only concerns the container category, it doesn't make too much sense to delete this right now, while the child categories remain as they are.~~ Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous struck comment was based on overseeing the earlier relisting comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a way to categorize people by ancestry that they do not acknowledge in any meaningful way, or may not know about. It directly contains multiple articles so deleting it would make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Carlossuarez46: @DexDor: @Marcocapelle: @Johnpacklambert: as you have supported deletion, please clarify whether you mean "delete all", as six categories are tagged in this discussion: three Eastern Orthodox and three Greek Orthodox. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of deleting all 6 (and all the other "descent" categories) - (assuming that any subcats are upmerged if necessary along the way). Someone's ethnicity might be a suitable characteristic for categorization (but nationality+occupation is much better), but these ill-defined categories of which one person can be in many (I've seen articles in at least 5 "descent" categories) are not good categorization. Often it's not even mentioned in the article - see, for example, Helen Thomas. DexDor^(talk) 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting 9 categories that should be treated the same: Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent, Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎, with its 4 + 3 nationality subcategories. I suppose that if the 6 tagged categories are going to be deleted now, the three that aren't tagged can be speedied later. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@B.Andersohn: @George Al-Shami: @A ntv: as contributors to the 2012 discussion who are still active. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: @DexDor: @Marcocapelle: @Johnpacklambert: Deletion, rather than merging to an alternative category, would remove the member pages from other parent hierarchies e.g. Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent & Category:American people of Arab descent. Is that desirable? – Fayenatic London 09:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I really think descent categories inappropriate, so no loss; that notwithstanding, since it's possible for people to be converts to religion, the mere fact that one distant ancestor was of a particular religion doesn't necessarily imply that they are descended from some ethnic or regional group often associated with that religion. E.g., are Sammy Davis' children of Middle Eastern descent because he converted to Judaism, a religion commonly associated with that region? ditto children of converts to Islam from ethnic groups far and wide? Best to leave it to editors, who based on WP:RS to put them into categories rather than trying to shoehorn religion categories into ethnic ones, albeit likely ones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it should be an upmerge as (assuming the current categorization is correct, and as Carlos has pointed out, it may not be) the articles are valid members of the parent categories. However, if (as I hope) (in the longer term) we'll remove all descent categories from Wikipedia then an upmerge may be unnecessary. An upmerge would be a step in the right direction. DexDor^(talk) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (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 science fiction fantasy 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. Arguments for deletion were varied, but it's undoubtedly the case that the category as-is helps no-one. No prejudice against creation and population of a Category:American science fantasy films in the future if there are a sufficient number of articles to warrant it. (edit conflict) @Jc37: The original nomination references "article" in the singular and uses a trait of the singular movie as a reason for renaming, so I doubt this was emptied. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 09:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American science fiction fantasy films to Category:American science fantasy films

Nominator's rationale: Because the article is science fantasy, and there is Category:Science fantasy films. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above, science fiction and fantasy are two separate genres in their own right. Brandmeister^talk 16:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not a defining characteristic of the content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful to categorize one, not yet released film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has 1 membe with an alphasort template at the top - was this emptied? If so, I oppose deletion. - jc37 09:36, 4 June 2016 (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:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX other parameters

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 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX other parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Previously populated by Template:Infobox animanga and its components, this tracking category is no longer needed and the checks that populated this category have been removed. I was looking an appropriate speedy deletion criteria, but didn't see one that was applicable. —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 23 April 2016 (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:Commercially available Elms

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 Category:Ulmus. The concerns that this category is not a subset of cultivars were never refuted, and upon reviewing the articles, I found multiple cases where the articles were not about cultivars. Ulmus is the existing parent category, so the merge target should be there instead. Most merge supporters didn't specify a target, but this one received no opposition. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Commercially available Elms to Category:Elm cultivars

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This new category was proposed for speedy renaming to lower case, but user:Le Deluge questioned whether this is a WP:Defining characteristic, and pointed out that there don't seem to be any equivalent categories. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic, I see you suggested merging Category:Commercially available Elms to Category:Elm cultivars. Whilst I thank you for your suggestion, these two categories both have separate uses. Category:Elm cultivars contains elm cultivars, not all of which are commercially available and Category:Commercially available Elms contains elms which are available commercially, not all of which are cultivars. So, I would ask please that these two categories not be merged. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thank you, Tom elm (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, commercial availability is non-defining in most cases, as we have lots of categorized items that could be bought. Brandmeister^talk 10:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; if Category:Elm cultivars is not the right target (see comment of Tom elm) then instead to Category:Ulmus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree that this is not defining. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment patent status and commercial availability does seem to be something to note. That said, I think that that is better presented in list format as categories can't show useful info like dates of the patent, etc. while a list may. - jc37 09:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because something is "of note" does not mean it is defining. We use the higher bar of determining if something is defining in creating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2016 (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.

Synchronised swimming in Brazil

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 per Option A. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EITHER Option A

Propose renaming Category:Synchronised swimming in Brazil to Category:Synchronized swimming in Brazil
Propose renaming Category:Synchronised swimming competitions Brazil to Category:Synchronized swimming competitions in Brazil

OR Option B

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian synchronized swimmers to Category:Brazilian synchronised swimmers
Propose renaming Category:Olympic synchronized swimmers of Brazil to Category:Olympic synchronised swimmers of Brazil

Nominator's rationale: I closed the recent discussion on March 20 and found no consensus on Option A, but that nomination did not point out the related Brazilian categories which are now listed here as option B. In support of option A, American English is normally used in the Americas where there is no strong British connection. In support of option B, some Brazilian categories use the "s" spellings, notably Category:Organisations based in Brazil. I tend to favour option A, but this time we must choose one or the other. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option A - makes the most sense. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 1 June 2016 (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:Automobile awards by continent

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Upmerging Category:Automobile awards by continent to Category:Automobile awards

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:SMALLCAT

This category contains 3 items: an award for cars sold in Europe, an award for cars made in North America, and a regional Middle Eastern award that doesn't belong in this category at all. I don't have any conceptual problem with this category but, in practice, it isn't a cohesive grouping. Most auto awards are by type of car, country or publication so there's not much room for growth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Fram as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed the Middle East one. I'm also not against this category but with only seven continents, of which not all will have auto awards, I don't see why the broader simpler category can't suffice. — Wylie pedia 04:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not enough content to merit a category. Could we also eliminate the subcat, which contains nothing but the main article and one on a magazine, possibly the awarding body. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: That subcategory is now nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 25#Category:European Car of the Year. Your opinions (pro/con/other) are welcome there. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2016 (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.