mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 24 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_24

< July 23 July 25 >

July 24

[edit]

Category:Stations on the Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway

[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. Timrollpickering 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article is at Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu high-speed railway with lowercase for words that aren't proper nouns. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2018 (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:Massacres committed by 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: Keep. Timrollpickering 16:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category basically overlaps with Category:Massacres in Turkey - there's no need for two categories at this time. Seraphim System (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep and repopulate the category for now. They are part of separate category trees, Category:Massacres committed by countries (part of Category:Massacres by perpetrator) versus Category:Massacres by country. I am not convinced of the value of Category:Massacres committed by countries, but I see no reason to treat the Turkish category separately from the rest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the articles in the category? Because I did, before I nominated it. Of course there is value to the parent category - they are two different things. The United States can commit massacres outside the United States. Massares commited by Israel includes things like Ghaziyeh airstrikes. The Turkish military has not really engaged in many high-profile military operations outside its own borders, so the category as it was completely overlapped with Massacres in Turkey. (With the exception of a few erroneous entries from before the Republic of Turkey was founded.) "I see no reason to treat the Turkish category separately"? - are there any articles to add to the category that would save it from being WP:OVERCAT? I see no reason to treat it any differently then any other instance of completely overlapping categories. Seraphim System (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Massacres that occurred before Turkey replaced the Ottoman Empire didn't occur "in Turkey" either by your logic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, I think they probably could be removed from that category as well. Checking similar categories like Category:Massacres in Israel it seems to be limited to post-1948 events. The main article is List of massacres in Israel. Creating the categories neatly from the start would be prevent issues like this. It doesn't improve anything to assume bad faith or blame editors who are trying to clean up the mess. Seraphim System (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphim System: No blame on my end, to be sure, and I don't doubt your nomination was in good faith. As I said, I'm slightly leaning towards doubting the usefulness of Category:Massacres committed by countries as a whole, but (per Marcocapelle's explanation below) that happens to be a larger discussion than just category for Turkey. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the nominator confuses massacres "in Turkey" with "by Turkey". "In Turkey" is where they occurred, "by Turkey" is who committed them. Turkey has committed massacres - removing the categories from the articles doesn't annul that fact. Of course, the nominator looked at the articles in the category, because he deleted the category from them all. Then nominated the category for deletion. That's not how things are done here (see WP:FAIT). Moreover, someone should see what other "tidying up" the nom has done to remove categories relating to Turkey's history. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator is continuing to de-populate the category, I won't edit war with him but someone ought to stop him or her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being a bit dramatic aren't you? It wasn't so major a change that it is "difficult to undo" or "irreversible" - we're discussing it right now. Considering you restored a massacre that was committed before the country of Turkey was founded, you would have to explain your objection to the other categories I removed more clearly, because it's a content-based complaint and every single removal was done after I checked WP:RS, based on the article content and WP:DEFINING. It seems like you have an opinion about what should be in the category, and I wonder if that is influencing your comments here? Can you just answer one simple question: are there any articles for this category that aren't already covered by "Massacres in Turkey'? If so, I will withdraw the nomination and repopulate the category myself.Seraphim System (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the nominator here. There is certain behavior one expects - an important one being not to depopulate the category; let the community decide. If you think that nothing pre-1922 is "Turkey" then busy yourself deleting all those pre-1922 folks from Category:Turkish people and its daughter people and put them in Category:People of the Ottoman Empire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm sorry about that, I didn't know. So I should nominate the overlapping category without de-populating? That makes sense, I will do that next time. I understand your point that there is overlap between Ottoman/Turkish people but I was told to follow WP:DEFINING. I only arrived at these categories while working on an article about Christianity in Turkey and I noticed a certain hyperbole beyond what is justified by the sources. I very much agree with the basic principle that Wikipedia is not the right place for advocacy. I don't think my choice of what to edit on a given day is misconduct. However, if you say there are some problems with those cats, I would be happy to review them sometime.Seraphim System (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the 2 categories are entirely different, in different trees. It seems highly unlikely that all massacres in Turkey were by Turkey, or that Turkey has committed no massacres outside Turkey (wasn't there one in Syria very recently?) Oculi (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, they're different, but I already said I would withdraw the nom if someone could suggest some articles to put in the category. That we are discussing hypothetical articles that could be created to populate the category is pretty dismal, imo. Seraphim System (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe one of the more experienced editors here can help me understand something - why is it so important they are in different trees? A few people have said that so I assume it's important for some reason. If I am reading an article and I click on "Massacres in Turkey" and then "Massacres by Turkey" how does it benefit me if the categories practically contain the same articles? Seraphim System (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The category system allows to search both bottom up (from article to category to a higher level category) and top down (the opposite way). In the latter case, with this nomination, you would find a hole in the tree and would not know how to search further. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that makes sense, thank you for explaining. Seraphim System (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is These are a natural part of the category system, the purpose of which is to help readers navigate among articles. Merge and delete would produce wrong and confusing historical results. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. Place Clichy (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2018 (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:Sexuality and computers

[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:Sexuality and computing. There is some willingness to consider a wider category as nominated; that could be added as a parent category. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-specific category; broadening the definition of this category a bit will make it much more useful. Techology and sexuality is a much wider topic than just computers and sexuality, going back to before the invention of computers. Consider, for example, call girls, made possible by the telephone, or the vibrator and electrosex, which both pre-date the invention of the computer. "Computers" is much too specific; more or less any modern technology involves computers, but is not necessarily a "computer technology". For example, the Internet is primarily a communications technology, even though it is implemented using computers, in much the same way that newspapers are primarily a communications technology, not a wood or pigment technology, although they are implemented using both. The same goes for telephony, cars, navigation, and so on: all now use computers, but are not "computer technologies". -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (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 Bengal Renaissance

[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 23, with notification to projects. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, hardly any of the articles in this category even mentions "Bengal Renaissance". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably trim. It would be ridiculous to just delete this, but with 130 members, it might be too large. The Bengal Renaissance navbox thing has about 50 names. Several of these mention eg the Young Bengal group, which it is legitimate to count as part of the Bengal Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Derozian redirects to Young Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense - the two things are different, which is why they have two articles. So why restrict the category to those from the smaller part? And the Indian and Bangladesh projects should be informed, rather than just Europeans with no knowledge of the area meddling in it! Another area of the BR was Brahmoism (but not plain Brahmo), and its later splinter groups, which many articles mention. You can be sure not every bio in the "Italian Renaissance" tree includes those words. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very few people in this category are defined as a Brahmoist. Some are of a Brahmoist family but that does not count as a defining characteristic if they were not active in Brahmoism themself. The Indian and Bangladesh projects are informed by the project tags on the category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's always a highly dubious argument - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Article alerts averages less than 1 view a day. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (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 Australian Labor Party

[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. ℯxplicit 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, as the header of the category page already indicates this is a hodgepodge category. The existence of Category:Australian Labor Party politicians‎ should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merely being "associated" with something is almost always non-defining. If the party has members as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union did, then perhaps membership is defining, but it's not clear that this is what is being categorized here. Being associated with a political party, such as saying you support it or campaign for it or such is much like being associated with a sports team by supporting it or watching/attending its games. Not meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either they are politicians (including party officials) or they are not worth categorising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganise somehow This seems to be a catch-all for ALP people not easily categorised elsewhere, mostly people notable in other fields who were unsuccessful candidates for the party, various party officials & staffers, a handful of intellectuals who may have fought the column war for the party plus a few councillors and some people whose article says nothing about Labor connections. Candidates and party officials have never been terribly satisfactorily categorised - maybe we should clearly merge them to Category:Australian Labor Party politicians‎ as a firm precedent? Timrollpickering 08:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (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 anti-austerity movement

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 25#Category:People associated with the anti-austerity movement. ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these are people associated with an anti-austerity movement in different countries, they do not have a relationship with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (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 Anonymous

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 25#Category:People associated with Anonymous. ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge per WP:OCASSOC, this is currently a hodgepodge category of people associated with Anonymous in very different ways. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That's how we have Category:Alt-right not Category:People associated with the alt-right. wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCASSOC and similar to my comments to the Labor Party above. "Activists" are hardly better. Look at our article "activism" which defines it as: "efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental reform or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society. Forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or to politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes." So anyone who writes to a newspaper or politician or campaigns could be an "activist". Malarkey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:21, 24 July 2018 (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:Wikipedian document markup users

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 25#Category:Wikipedian document markup users. ℯxplicit 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing two changes: (1) to align with the title of the main article, Markup language; and (2) to replace "users" (which we all are) with a more active descriptor such as coders, writers, etc. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2018 (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.