[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26

Category:Vardar Macedonia

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. MER-C 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to distinguish from the succeeding category Vardar Macedonia (1918–41), which is being renamed to Vardar Macedonia (1918–1941). The ambiguity was overlooked at a recent speedy nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 26 April 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:Children of Holocaust survivors

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. The history of discussions regarding this category in 2010, 2014, and today is like seeing a progression in a community understanding of what it means for a category to be "defining." The result of this CFD does not mean that the Holocaust did not leave deep, personal traumas defining to one's upbringing. In fact, an exploration of this topic and its associated research may be best explored in articlespace (Children of Holocaust survivors?). However, the definition of defining categories as regards biographies refers to "standard biographical information" and "the reasons for a person's notability." The keep position has successfully argued for the former definition, but not for the latter, which is the salient one for CFD. bibliomaniac15 23:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing individuals by the experiences of their parents is non-defining in the vast majority of cases. A random sample of 10 articles in this category revealed not one mention of this facet of their familial history in the introduction and nor should it. Per our guidelines, it is unlikely that an article would consider family history to be "appropriate to mention in the lead portion" of an article. As horrific as the Holocaust was, we need not categorize the descendants collectively. User:Namiba 21:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a discussion on this category occurred in 2014 and the result was no consensus
  • Support per nom. While it is undoubtedly a very significant characteristic for the children of Holocaust survivors themselves, it is less significant from an encyclopedic point of view, e.g. it is generally not the main reason why they are included in en.wp. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article's categorization should never be defined by the poor quality of a lead. We have numerous leads that do not even mention genealogy. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think introductions should include genealogy?--User:Namiba 17:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not only is something that happened to your parents usually not defining to you, but in the case of Holocaust survivors, something that did not happen to your parents is even less so. And also, the notion of Holocaust survivors is so vague that it is sometimes understood by some to include almost anyone having been anywhere near any Axis-occupied country. Place Clichy (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is extremely insensitive. People who survived torture and starvation certainly did have something happen to them. Approximately 90% of Jews who were detained in concentration camps perished, but the remaining 10% can not be said that it's something that "did not happen" to them. --Scharb (talk)
    This category is for people whose parents survived the Holocaust (e.g. by fleeing Europe). In the sample of articles I looked at not one said the parents were tortured or starved (or held in a concentration camp). DexDor (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be generally assumed that of the 600,000 Jews who survived concentration camp, that most of them had children, and some of them have their own wikipedia pages. That these survivors were starved, tortured, and treated barbarically is pretty heavily implied by the term, "Holocaust survivor." In articles like Art Spiegelman, it briefly discusses his parents during the Holocaust; we know from his books that they starved in camp, and his mother wrote a (destroyed) written account of Auschwitz, but this is not explicitly stated on Art Spiegelman's article, though it is summarized on the page for Maus. There is the possibility of adding the information you're describing to the articles through a bit of research on Yad Vashem, USHMM and other holocaust survivor databases, though this may take some time and effort; just because it is not on Wikipedia (yet) does not mean this information does not exist and isn't readily available to be researched and added in. --Scharb (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your definition of "holocaust survivor" doesn't match the way this category has been used or the article at Holocaust survivors. You are arguing as if the category is "Children of survivors of torture during the holocaust"; it's not. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should then suggest instead the renaming of the category to something like Children of concentration camps survivors. The notion of Holocaust survivors is applied just as much to people who e.g. would have fled Europe in 1932, which was no doubt a most traumatic experience anyway. The Holocaust did happen, and they were still alive after it, so they would qualify, and they are routinely qualified as such. Place Clichy (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. People should only be categorized for what they are notable for (e.g. being an actor, author or whatever) and for standard biographical things (which this isn't). DexDor (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with my comments at the military brats category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is very important, culturally, speaking from personal experience, and there is research that shows that it was an extremely important factor in one's upbringing. In "Unwanted Legacies,"[1] professor Abraham Peck proposes that the descendants of Holocaust survivors form their own unique subculture within Judaism, which he names "Sherit Ha-Pletah," a biblical term meaning, "the part that remains." It is conjectured that Sherit have unique political views and personality traits. Other studies have suggested that it is even important, biologically: there are studies that show statistically-significant epigenetic, inherited trauma for descendants of those who survived camps.[2] As it is a matter of ongoing scholarly debate and scientific inquiry, it is of interest to researchers on the subject and the category serves a useful research purpose. Please keep this category up. --Scharb (talk)
    "...proposes...conjectured...suggested..." - what's left amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was adhering to scholarly NPOV. That's why I cited sources which support my argument, which you may read for yourself. Your arguments amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and WP:VAGUEWAVE, not to mention argumentum ad ignoratium. Here are more sources which document children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors as a distinct group with defining characteristics: [3] [4] [5]. Furthermore, there are organizations such as the Generations of the Shoah International focused on the cultural and biological/medical after effects on children and grandchildren of holocaust survivors. [6] --Scharb (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is because this characteristic is non-defining in the vast majority of cases (e.g. for Hillel Slovak). You are not addressing that point. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is defining, even in your example. Hillel Slovak's psychological and drug issues culminating in his premature death are inextricable from the aforementioned phenomenon of epigenetic trauma. (although his death, obviously, inhibits further investigation) Even in your example of a non-defining trait, it is easy to see that it was in fact, most probably, extremely defining. A matter of life and death. Furthermore, researchers investigating the subject of epigenetic trauma would be helped by the information provided by this category, and Slovak's case would be a famous example of a person who was negatively affected by such trauma, which may illuminate their findings and help progress the field. --Scharb (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"drug issues ... are inextricable from the ... epigenetic trauma" - really? DexDor (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion of "part that remains" is indeed interesting, but it reinforces the notion that, more often than not, nowadays, the notions of "[descendant of] Holocaust survivors" and "Jew" tend to be synonymous. This is why this category lacks interest. Except if there were a distinct Jewish subculture where the legacy of the Holocaust does not play any role, which is, most unfortunately, very unlikely. Place Clichy (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Existence of the group itself is a proof that the phenomenon exists and therefore, as such, it should be explained in an encyclopedia. Those people has a unique storry to tell. PeterGabris (talk03:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— PeterGabris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Unsigned !vote by 72.88.214.46.
WP:OSE. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of organised groups has no bearing on WP:DEFINING, which is the test against which the category is being weighed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That there's scholarly articles about a subject doesn't show that it's defining for wp categorization.  There are scholarly articles about many things (e.g. the effect of birth order i.e. "Category:Firstborns" etc) that are non-defining. DexDor (talk) 08:41, 8 May 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:Cathedrals in Essex

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 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and there is no other category with cathedrals by county. The proposal is "delete" rather than "merge" because the articles are already in the appropriate Anglican and Roman Catholic subcategories of the potential merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 26 April 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:Boston University College of Communications alumni

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. MER-C 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Agree the category name to the name of the institution: Boston University College of Communication. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 26 April 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:Cathedrals in Russia by city

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. bibliomaniac15 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Besides there is no other category with cathedrals by country and city. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really an argument for the UK only, and it is not really even valid today. As the UK acknowledges freedom of worship for quite some time there are several cathedrals (of different faiths) in many British cities. Outside of the UK, a city can have several cathedrals even of the same faith. Many Russian Orthodox monasteries have a cathedral inside them as their head church, and as a result there can be many different Orthodox cathedrals in the same city. By current category count Moscow has 11 cathedrals that have a Wikipedia article, and Saint Petersburg has 13. Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 29 April 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:Bosnian painters

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. bibliomaniac15 18:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina painters (and its subcategory duplicates Category:20th-century Bosnia and Herzegovina painters) Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only just added, giving this one time for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:04, 26 April 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:Mexican independent television stations

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 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category coexisted with Category:Independent television stations in Mexico and is redundant to it. I moved its remaining member to that category. Raymie (t • c) 17:40, 26 April 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:Judges from Dedham, Massachusetts

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. bibliomaniac15 18:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over meticulous division of a category. I don't see another Judges from Foo category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 26 April 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.

LGBT and religion

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. MER-C 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename without "topics", to be consistent with the parent Category:LGBT and religion, which is part of Category:LGBT and society. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 26 April 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.

Roman Catholic cathedrals in China by province

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. bibliomaniac15 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, having 9 categories for 8 articles is just slightly overcategorizing. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt This nomination is incomplete. It does not state what is to happen to the articles in the categories to be deleted. With these deletions, they will lack proper Chinese parentage. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 3 May 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.

Railway stations in Hong Kong opened in 2020

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Railway stations in Hong Kong opened in 2020

Category:American pornographic film actors of Singaporean 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: delete. MER-C 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is a category that is unlikely to grow. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some more discussion to see whether merging or deleting is the better option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:32, 26 April 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:Gender in computing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Category:Gender in computing

Category:World cups

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: Nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac15 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups a wide variety of awards in a wide variety of sports based on whether "World Cup" is in their name. We already have World Cup that discusses the concept and which serves as a WP:SETINDEX for readers who need help getting to the right article they're looking for. I can't imagine a reader who would want an easy navigation route between World Cup of Poker, Rugby World Cup, UIAA Ice Climbing World Cup and Canoe Slalom World Cup though and none of those seemed defined by their name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Purge? Would it also make sense to purge the current contents to match the now single main article: World cup competition? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, it might be quicker for me to just create this new category from scratch but no objection to "rename and purge" to keep the edit history. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also rather prefer "rename and purge" because if you start from scratch you may well miss a few that do belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@94.179.168.56: Happy to withdraw this nomination if the two main articles are going to be realigned. Both your proposal and Marcocapelle's would solve my concern about WP:SHAREDNAME of the current contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I agree with merging of World cup competition with World Cup into resulting article with a title of World cups. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 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:Pfizer Award recipients

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 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Pfizer Award is award annually to a book about the history of science. This category groups the authors of those works, most of whom are already very prominent academic historians who write on a variety of topics. The vast majority of the articles mention this award in passing (although a few mention it in the lede or not at all) and it seems to reflect their pre-existing prominence rather than be defining. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 26 April 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.
  1. ^ Wagner, Gottfried and Abraham J. Peck. Unwanted Legacies: Sharing the Burden of Post-Genocide Generations. Texas Tech University Press, 2014. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/book/35779.
  2. ^ Kahane-Nissenbaum, Melissa C., "EXPLORING INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF TRAUMA IN THIRD GENERATION HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS" (2011). Doctorate in Social Work (DSW) Dissertations. 16. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations_sp2/16
  3. ^ Aarons, Victoria, and Alan L. Berger. Third-Generation Holocaust Representation: Trauma, History, and Memory. Northwestern University Press, 2017. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22727kb. Accessed 4 May 2020.
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/15/trauma-second-generation-holocaust-survivors
  5. ^ http://www.drevafogelman.com/_psychological_dynamics_in_the_lives_of_third_generation_holocaust_survivors__94110.htm
  6. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/15/trauma-second-generation-holocaust-survivors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_26&oldid=956153906"