[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17

[edit]

Category:Centre for International Governance Innovation

[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A useless category containing only one article, which is itself basically advertorial. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is a container for four media files. I have no objection to deleting the category, but we should remove the category from the four files to prevent the category from reappearing on wiki/Special:WantedCategories Gjs238 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 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:Lesbian novels

[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: renamed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories should conform with sister category Category:Novels with gay themes, which was renamed from Category:Gay novels with this CfD in 2009 on the basic grounds that people are gay, not novels. — TAnthonyTalk 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now I was concerned with the consistency of these three subcategories of Category:LGBT novels, but yes, that is a much larger discussion I think may be necessary once I've done a little research on past CfDs. The other categories under LGBT novels are mostly novels by country, but at the way top of this hierarchy is Category:LGBT culture. In the many descendant branches we have a mix of "LGBT-related (insert your noun here)" or just "LGBT (noun)", as in Category:LGBT-related magazines or Category:LGBT literature.— TAnthonyTalk 00:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there may be a slight difference between Lesbian novels and Novels with lesbian themes, in the sense that novels with a negative view on lesbian relationships may be classified as novels with lesbian themes, but would most likely not be classified as lesbian novels (as a genre). However, this may be a too theoretical objection so I haven't stated an Oppose vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly subjective; these suffer the same problems as the "about" categories; how inherent must the lesbian theme be or how trivial can it be to the work, and what reliable source tells us it's at least that much. Lists are so much more appropriate for these sorts of things; they can elaborate how central the theme is or how peripheral, cite sources to how oblique references to lesbianism can be shown and not merely rely on one editor's assertion that a work has a "lesbian theme" in it, somewhere.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination; in fact, I've had this on my radar for a while as a thing that should happen for the same reasons the nominator gives, but for no particular reason that I can identify I just hadn't gotten around to actually listing it. Carlossuarez's objection to the category existing at all doesn't wash, because LGBT literature is a real thing that is attested by real reliable sources, which makes it not the same as a subjective/trivial/non-RSable grouping like "songs about rain" or "chairs in fiction". If a novel's inclusion is debatable or questionable, it just shouldn't be included, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the category for the many novels that are properly sourceable as belonging to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nomination. --Atvica (talk) 06:45, 24 August 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:LGBT sportspeople at the 2016 Summer Olympics

[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:LGBT Olympians was previously deleted Joeykai (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Consensus for the previously deleted category nominator mentioned was to listify. I would support that here, but I don't feel strongly about deleting this category. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single other subcategory in that category is grouping athletes by the specific sport in which they competed — a distinction which is defining and encyclopedic as it has a direct bearing on what they're doing at the Olympics. None of the others is grouping athletes on a personal characteristic comparable to sexual orientation, such as their race, religion or ethnic background, that's tangential to their participation in the Olympics. That's why this category and not others: it's not grouping people on an equivalent basis to any of the others, but on a non-defining intersection of two distinct and unrelated traits. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 August 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:Anti-abortion violence in fiction

[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's consensus that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies here. However, due to it also being part of a separate nomination here, its ultimate fate is still up in the air. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. The parent category currently only has two redirects in it (i.e, no articles directly) and there isn't too much potential for growth. Graham (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, are you arguing for a new non-fiction subcategory of Category:Anti-abortion violence in media? Because when there are so few articles in either category, it seems odd to separate out fiction but not non-fiction. Graham (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And bear in mind that Category:Anti-abortion violence in media is essentially empty right now. Graham (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be a subcat of the Category:Creative works tree somewhere, not media, due to long established consensus. Good luck finding where though. Usually such things are to be lists not categories due to the need for references explaining why the work is indicative of the topic. And with that said, Listify/Delete - jc37 14:22, 25 August 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:Our Lady of the Hens

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Category:Our Lady of the Hens

"Pro-life" categories

[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 consensus to rename all categories except for the American ones, which I find no consensus to rename. There were some valid concerns regarding moving the American categories away from the main article title, which is United States pro-life movement. While others still wanted those categories renamed for consistency reasons, it seems like that issue stems from inconsistencies within the article titles. If someone wants, this closure is without prejudice against a(n) WP:RM discussion on the matter. If the American article were to be moved from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion", then the categories could be moved via WP:C2D. However, unless that happens, the American categories will remain as-is. One last bit of housekeeping: since all but the American categories have been moved, I'm also accepting Graham's proposal that "Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Category:Victims of anti-abortion violence in the United States (is) moved to Category:Pro-life violence in the United States and Category:Victims of pro-life violence in the United States, respectively, to remain consistent". -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: As a topic category, Category:Pro-life movement should be sharing a name with the article about its topic (Anti-abortion movements) and its subcategories should be following suit. As well, naming conventions in the category tree are currently inconsistent as part of the tree (Category:Anti-abortion violence and its subcategories) is already using terminology in line with the parent's main article.
To be clear, the primary issue here is not whether the term "pro-life" is neutral when used in Wikipedia's voice. That is a matter more appropriately handled at Talk:Anti-abortion movements (and it should be noted that the most recent requested move was not successful). Rather, this is about consistency of naming conventions both within the category tree and with the main article.
Additionally, I changed the spelling of the word "organizations" to "organisations" in the Austrian and Norwegian categories to conform to the Category:Organisations based in Austria tree and the Category:Organisations based in Norway tree, respectively. Graham (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: Are you user:Graham? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Nope – different Graham. I'm User:Graham11. Graham (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: If we were to move all but the American categories, would you also want Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Category:Victims of anti-abortion violence in the United States moved to Category:Pro-life violence in the United States and Category:Victims of pro-life violence in the United States, respectively, to remain consistent? Graham (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, yes. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support that change. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the clarification (for the sake of the closer). Graham (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice, when to defer to regional variation and when to seek commonality seems to be a matter of judgment. "Anti-abortion" is not incomprehensible in American English so my vote is a preference for clarity but I respect your perspective too. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I read MOS:ENGVAR quite differently. It doesn't seem to suggest that MOS:COMMONALITY is an optional component and you don't seem to be arguing that there is an exceptional reason why MOS:COMMONALITY would not apply here.
As well, I'm curious as to what you mean by "my vote is a preference for clarity". In what way is "anti-abortion" less clear than "pro-life"? Given Carlos's comment below, which misinterprets the usual scope of the term "pro-life" in American English, I would argue that "pro-life" is significantly less clear. Graham (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the terminology in an American context is pretty consistently "pro-life" and I think that's clearer. We routinely give deference to regional English, even when forcing a global term would still be comprehensible like we recently did here. Your goal of standardization is reasonable but, for me, it's outweighed by other considerations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect:

Yes, the terminology in an American context is pretty consistently "pro-life" and I think that's clearer.

You're wrongly equating common usage and clarity. A term can be infrequently used (though, as an aside, this term is frequently used, as established in past RfCs) without suffering any loss of clarity, so it's disingenuous to suggest that your "vote is a preference for clarity".
Additionally, that doesn't address the issue of clarity with respect to the term "pro-life". The fact that it's been misunderstood in this very conversation by a long-time contributor speaks volumes, does it not? And if you believe "anti-abortion" to be unclear, in what way do you foresee it being misunderstood? Graham (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging RevelationDirect in case my question slipped under the radar. Graham (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: Since you already believe my comments here are "disingenuous", any response from me is unlikely to sway your opinion. I look forward to finding more common ground with you in a future nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: If I'm wrong about that – and I would sincerely love to be – you're welcome to explain how it's "a preference for clarity" and in what way you foresee the term being misunderstood. Graham (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Wiki content guidelines, unless it's a fringe position, it ought to be covered. Given that the US's oldest and largest right-to-life organization (http://www.nrlc.org/) under issues has euthanasia and assisted suicide, makes it clear that it's not a fringe position; given that the largest religious pro-life organization in the US, the Roman Catholic Church states "As a gift from God, every human life is sacred from conception to natural death. The life and dignity of every person must be respected and protected at every stage and in every condition. The right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of human rights that leads Catholics to actively work for a world of greater respect for human life and greater commitment to justice and peace." [1] Now, Wikipedia may consider NRLC and the Catholic Church fringe groups, but few people in the real world do so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: If we're going to change what it is we mean by "pro-life", isn't that a decision to be made at Talk:Pro-life and/or the page to which Pro-life redirects? Surely you're not advocating that we contradict ourselves. Graham (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: I'm not the one trying to change what "pro-life" means; by limiting to abortion only, the nominator is. Perhaps this ought to be withdrawn and discussed at the talk page you refer to? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: This nomination was made merely to enforce the consensus-supported status quo. This matter has been discussed in the past. See, eg, the RfC referenced below. Merely enforcing a decision that has been made shouldn't require re-litigation of the broader issue, but if you're unhappy with the status quo, it would be your place to raise that in the appropriate forum. Graham (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: it's not the status quo, see, e.g., Helen Prejean in the category; I don't know what as an "activist" she's done for abortion, but she's been noted as pro-life for her anti-death-penalty stance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos: The categorisation of one article does not make a "status quo" when a broader consensus has been reached. "Consensus among a limited group of editors [or one editor who added the category], at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." And a quick google search of that name with the term pro-life indicates that she is indeed anti-abortion as well. Graham (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, every Roman Catholic religious is, but she's not noted for that. And this status quo to which you are referring is a figment of your imagination. If these are re-named, are you going to purge anyone (especially WP:BLPs) who are not of the narrower definition you claim for the terminology? If not, this is a defamation magnet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlos:

Presumably, every Roman Catholic religious is, but she's not noted for that.

Perhaps in theory (if you ask the Vatican), but I'm sure that a number of women religious in the National Coalition of American Nuns and Catholics for Choice would beg to differ, as those articles clearly indicate.

And this status quo to which you are referring is a figment of your imagination.

Did you not read the RfC linked below (WP:RFC/AAMC) in which that issue is discussed?

If these are re-named, are you going to purge anyone (especially WP:BLPs) who are not of the narrower definition you claim for the terminology?

If you believe there to be anti-death-penalty activists who are not anti-abortion, yes, they should be removed if renamed (and possibly irrespective of renaming, as the category tree has always – since the category's creation – made clear that it is intended for anti-abortion activists). Graham (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Please ping me.[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes they are the much same thing, but that does not means that we have to change everything. People tend to prefer to say that they are for something, rather than saying that they are anti (against) something. WP uniformity should not rule all. That does not mean that I am asking to alter the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wasn't there a community-wide discussion on naming related to this topic? What was the result? - jc37 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: I would assume that any such discussion would take place at the talk page of the main article about the subject Talk:Anti-abortion movements. Looking there, it appears that it was decided to leave the page at its current title, ie, Anti-abortion movements. Graham (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. And looking it over, I'm still not sure what the result was... - jc37 22:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: You're right, that really wasn't presented clearly. Looking through the "Admin discussion" section of that page, I'm inferring that it was closed as 'no consensus', but as a result of the lack of consensus, it appears to have led to another RfC – WP:RFC/AAMC – later that year. In that RfC, it seems that the following decisions were reached:

    Premise 1: Wikipedia should cover the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements as distinct topics with their own articles […]

    Premise 2: The articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion were originally about the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, with that scope later expanding to include abortion advocacy movements outside the US […]

    Conclusion: Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion should be moved so as to clearly and unambiguously identify their topics as being the United States pro-choice and pro-life movements, respectively […]

    Title option 2: United States pro-choice movement and United States pro-life movement

    I'm assuming that to be why we now have two US-specific articles and two general articles, and given the talk page discussion, consensus rests with the current title of Anti-abortion movements.
    While the title of the US article does include the phrase "pro-life", I don't think that overrides (1) MOS:COMMONALITY (which states that language common to all varieties of English should be used when possible), (2) the fact that the main article on the subject uses the title Anti-abortion movements, and (3) the value of consistency in the naming structure of the category tree. Graham (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for US related articles. Pro life is far and away the common name here, and saying "anti-abortion" is widely seen as a POV reversal of the common name. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timothy: For the sake of the closer, I should clarify: Do you agree with RevelationDirect and Presidentman that if the US categories maintain the "pro-life" language, Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Category:Victims of anti-abortion violence in the United States should be moved accordingly? Graham (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. No I suppose not. Pro-life is the branding of the organized proactive political movement. The google test doesn't seem to support changing these two.TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timothy: The "google test" depends on what you're googling. While there's more results for "anti-abortion violence" than "pro-life violence", that reverses if you compare, for example, "anti-abortion" assault and "pro-life" assault. And I would hope that United States pro-life movement isn't titled as such because of "branding". As well, how is using "anti-abortion" in this context not, in your words, "a POV reversal of the common name"? Graham (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the "movement" searches, I note that pro life has five times the results. It is about branding, but more about successful branding to the point that it's become the common name. Anti-abortion is used predominately in ways that are opposed or outright condemning (such as in the case of violence), while "pro-life" is used in favorable, neutral, and often also in critical contexts. TimothyJosephWood 12:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose This is just a repeat of previous attempts to allow those who oppose this movement to define it, its goals and its definition. The movement itself supports life in a broad set of circumstances, and does not only focus on the issue of abortion. The rename would clearly take Wikipedia to the point of advocating one particular point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The attempted targets and some of the rhetoric above shows clear animus towards the pro-life movement. The attempt to make the US movement an exception ignores the fact that there are international interconnections in the movement, that the rhetoric of the movement values life, and that by creating a US exception it would open a back door renaming of the US category. It is bad enough that for 40 years mainstream US media has been acting as shills for the Abortion industry, we do not need to make Wikipedia such. People did indepth studies back in 1990 that showed that mainstream US newsrooms were overwhelmingly biased on this matter. More recent studies have just confirmed this matter. Keller, who was the managing editor of the New York Times, declared that the Times functioned on the asusmption that those in favor of abortion were right and the pro-life movement was wrong. Yet, here in Wikipedia we seek to actually avoid language and writing that makes such an assumption. If we want Wikipedia to avoid being labeled as the shill of a particular industry and as politically biased, we will use neutral principals and not apply a biased and intentionally negative impression forming name onto a large scale movement. This is especially so since National Right to Life and many other groups also expend large amounts of resources in opposing physician induced deaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all This movement is not pro-life at all. They are simply anti-abortion activists who pay lip service to the concept of respect for life, while actually not caring at all for the quality of life of potential mothers and children. The current title sounds patently false. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 17 September 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.

Seattle

[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: renamed according to Option A, meaning that "Washington" is removed. A clear majority supported Option A (my count was 15-6) and the majority had strong arguments to back up their claim. These include the fact that "Seattle" is a unique city name, and that the article is located at Seattle (C2D), backed up by WP:USPLACE. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming according to one of the following options:
Rationale: All categories referring to this city should use the same name; prefer Option A per the articles about this city, i.e Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following are previous discussions related to this issue:

I have notified the participants of the 3 most recent discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Option A Long overdue, commonsense fix. If there's any opportunity for common ground here, it's a city with a unique name. Seattle (disambiguation) shows no other cities. Seattle is exempt from WP:USPLACE. It beggars belief to pretend that a user could see these categories and say, "Oh, which Seattle is this?" --BDD (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Option A: Categories are supposed to have titles that are as short as possible. If the articles have short titles, the categories should too. The title of categories should be shackled to the title of the article, and if the article doesn't use a state, region or nation, neither should the category(ies). pbp 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Category names don't follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... except when they do. See the penultimate discussion in the list above for the cases of "ambiguous" titles like "People from London" or "People from Moscow" that no one is likely to propose renaming. I accept that sometimes categories will need longer titles, but we should only resort to this when there's a real likelihood of miscategorization. That won't be a concern here. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B Simplest choice: change only 1 category to match the long-standing convention of the others. As others have pointed out in prior discussions, NYC is the only city which does not conform and that also seems to be a long-standing convention. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only one in the US, perhaps. See my reply to pbp above. This is an odd application of American exceptionalism. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with your argument about WP:USPLACE, but the fact that long-standing consensus linked to by the OP disregards that policy prevents me from supporting this specific case. I would welcome, and support, an en masse proposal to change categories of all cities exempted from USPLACE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming the Seattle article? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with that. New York City, Los Angeles, and maybe Chicago are the only U.S. cities I feel like I could support an exception to the "City, State" convention. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be okay with renaming Seattle to "Seattle, Washington," with a redirect from its current page. But that's not really the purpose of a CfD nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with changing all the articles per WP:COMMONNAME since states are usually given even with large American cities. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency between category and parent article is more important than between catagories. Categories exist in support of articles. If the categorisation of other AP listed articles are wrong, fix them. Subcategories should not be available for hidden or grass root naming convention battles. If something is wrong with the AP city list exceptions, CfD is not the venue to discuss it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. I think the best practice would be to simply follow the name of the article rather than attempting to maintain a "special" naming convention that applies solely to categories. Issues of potential ambiguity and primary usage should be dealt with in article space, and then category space should reflect whatever is decided. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B – not this again. I thougUS ht we had settled this matter via the Selinker proposal years go that US categories would stick with 'City, state' format whatever their articles might do. Oculi (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any basis for disregarding the main article here. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing is ever settled on Wikipedia unless nearly everyone agrees - we only have a moratorium for a while. This hasn't been discussed for over 3 years, and it was a "no consensus", not a consensus to do nothing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Until If/When Articles Renamed Having more specific naming for categories values the time of editors using Hotcat over readers going to wrong article. If an article, needs a more specific name, fine, and I'm actually open to saying all US city articles should include the state as part of the name. In the mean time, categories for Seattle and Birmingham should blindly follow the main articles since the navigational issues of articles and categories are identical. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. This again? After 11 previous rejections of this approach? OK, let's go through it one more time. As usual, the nominator has picked a specific city (mine, no less!) that has no other counterparts, but so many US cities are copies of other cities. There are multiple Romes, Manchesters, Parises, Londons, San Joses, and so on and so on. We are a copycat nation. The only sensible approach is to use the same convention for all US cities: city, then state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Selinker: Why is option A not a sensible approach, though? It seems to me that both A and B are "sensible", in the sense that both a logical basis; both would be easy to implement; and both have some precedential practice elsewhere in WP categories that could be used to back them up. I think it more just comes down to preference—whether one wants to adopt a distinct guideline for categories for U.S. cities (B), or whether one wants the article guideline to extend to also cover categories for U.S. cities (A). It seems hyperbolic to me to argue that only one of the options is sensible. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific city I picked this time was because of a single category which was created without the state qualifier (the Option B category), where a nomination to speedy rename it was objected to per the article name. Please also note that consensus can change, and as far as I know, this hasn't been discussed since July 2013 - and 3 years is plenty of time for consensus to change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Mike Selinker, there are multiple Romes, Manchesters, Parises, and Londons. Would you support renaming Category:People from Rome, Category:People from Manchester, Category:People from Paris, and Category:People from London, then? If those titles are not problematic, how would "People from Seattle" be? --BDD (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have made this argument so many times without it being refuted that I really can't tell if it's that good of an argument or if supporters of the status quo find it somehow so ridiculous as to not merit a response... --BDD (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think supporting renaming Seattle would indicate I'm ok with those renames as well (at least for me), but since that's not clear, I would support those renames as well, yes. Kbdank71 17:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming Category:People from Rome to Category:People from Rome, Italy if that came up. But that's not the issue on the table. The issue on the table is that there are multiple Romes in the United States, and they need a state disambiguator. Maybe there's only one Seattle, but Las Vegas definitely needs a disambiguator, as there is Las Vegas, New Mexico in addition to Las Vegas, Nevada. So we shouldn't leave it up to individual editors to decide which get a disambiguator and which don't. It is much better to have a simple naming scheme, and hey, we have one for many hundreds of categories! City, then state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a naming scheme in mainspace: state name appended unless in the AP Stylebook. And we have a speedy renaming principle that categories should match their articles. A separate—and, as far as I can tell, unwritten—naming scheme layered on top of that only adds unnecessary complication and misunderstandings at CFDS. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix, Arizona and Washington, D.C. are exceptions to the exceptions.
Generally speaking, these cities are notable without reference to their state. The styling of these articles is long since and firmly established. Categorisation should follow suit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is selectively applying this to the articles but not the categories. Let's use AP for both or neither to allow for consistency with navigation for readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. I'm with Mike Selinker. This has been decided long ago. And yes, the last four may have been no consensus, but they were no consensus to drop the state. And as for notability, just because they're notable to one doesn't mean they're notable to all, especially people outside the US. Giving people more information is always better than making them dig for it. Kbdank71 13:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A No need to have "Washington" in name if the article is just "Seattle" wp:usstate doesn't apply to Seattle. Also Seattle isn't inextricably bound to those other cities just because they are all in the US. This move can happen on its own, regardless of whether the other categories are also proposed to be renamed at the present.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per BDD and others. This is in line with the guidance at WP:CONCISE. Calidum ¤ 02:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A category follow the article name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B It appears that the Railway stations category is the only Seattle category that doesn't add "Washington". There are more than 100 categories and subcategories that use "Seattle, Washington". (Here's the list.) And this is the case with EVERY other article on the AP list; see Category:Chicago, Illinois; Category:Los Angeles, California; etc. In other words the state is always added, even for cities on the AP list, in every case except for this one railway station category, which was apparently named by someone who didn't know the precedent. How much simpler and less disruptive to change that one category, and make everything consistent! --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A -- Seattle (disambiguation) shows that there is no significant rival place, so that the disambiguator is unnecessary. Sometimes a category needs a disambiguator, where the article does not: classically Birmingham, West Midlands, to keep articles related to Birmingham, AL out of it, but that does not apply here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. The choice seems to be between renaming one category to be in line with (say) 100, or renaming all 100 to come in line with just one. As others have already rightly noted, the former is a whole lot simpler and less disruptive – particularly given that the existing naming pattern for the relevant categories is already stable, long-standing, and (save this one outlier) entirely consistent. I have nothing against category names precisely matching article names, but at the same time I don't see that they need to, and would prefer to avoid doing a mass of renaming just to conform to a single anomaly. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But one could easily see the status quo as an anomaly, the fixing of which would save us headaches down the road. CFDS sees perennial requests for renaming of such categories under criterion C2D. Perhaps they don't need to match article names, but that's a solid enough principle to merit speedy renaming. How many times do we have to explain to an editor "No, these are exceptions"? On the other hand, if we made the change, how often would we encounter requests for longer category titles? --BDD (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CfD is already a venue for silly titling proxy battles. It is important to stop that. If these categories continue to misnamed, they will continue to confuse editors concerning category titling convention, which is to follow the parent article. Category renaming tools are quite sophisticated and efficient, the work required to fix should not be a concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2D Disregarding WP:C2D actually presents a real problem: it opens up the CFD discussion boards to start second guessing article names instead of just starting a RM on the article talk page. And the mismatches that result from this approach between article and category names hinder navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having reflected on C2D (which does favor article-category agreement), I'm willing to support option A, though I still have to hold my nose to do it. I dislike the idea of changing a huge number of stable category names to square with a single outlier, but at the same time I do like having all items within a class consistent, and agree that if the articles are titled x then it probably is better for the matching categories to be titled x as well. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you know, if you all want to endlessly spin wheels, please feel free. I really feel for User:Mike Selinker et al. I wonder if anyone "voting" to support the less specific naming has done any checking beyond "gee, that sounds like a good idea, I support it...". This is a ridiculously complicated issue. Las Vegas is just the tip of the iceberg. I like organisation, and definitely like general rules, but sometimes things require exceptions, simply because people were involved, made things messy and so some things - like city names - do not "fit" in the arbitrary little boxes we'd like them to fit in. And forcing a consensus because IWANTIT, rather than dealing with the actual facts on the ground is probably not the way to go. Just a thought. And no, I'm not even going to bother opposing this little faux logic fest. I now leave you to your wheel spinning... - jc37 14:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "forcing a consensus"? --BDD (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, could you clarify? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual facts on the ground are that the articles about certain US cities don't use the state names, and this should be fixed - either by moving the articles or by renaming the categories. Personally, I support the latter, so I support Option A. I would also like to point out the immediate cause for this nomination (the category listed in Option B, where a speedy renaming request was rejected). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 25 August 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:Christianity in Pagani

[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: merged. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT, too small town to have a separate Christianity category and there isn't even a Category:Pagani. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 17 August 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:Wikibomb2014

[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From what I tell the other Category:Wikipedia edit-a-thons categories and pages are the actual meetup information and other materials, not the pages created by the edit-a-thons. Given the number of edit-a-thons that could potentially occur (especially 'improvement' ones rather than pure creation ones), I don't think we should categorize articles by how they were created. However, Category:Articles created as part of Punjab Editathon - 2016 has I think the right approach in that the category specifies it is for the articles created and is on the talk page not the mainspace page (even if not shown). Talk pages are an ugly mess of categories anyways so I propose a renaming of this category and a swap from mainspace to talk page for these pages. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial support. I think it's OK to do this now, but it's not practical to do this when the event is taking place. Such events usually involve a lot of new users. It's hard enough to get them to add the category to the article, let alone attempt to get them to add it to a Talk page that most won't even have looked at. Also now that we have the Visual Editor which is likely to be used at such events, the VE doesn't work on Talk pages. Similar reasoning applies to keeping the category name short and sweet (minimises the likelihood they get it wrong). It also makes sense that the category is not hidden during the event (so they see they succeeded in adding the category and the event organisers, usually not Wikipedians, can see the category too) but can become a hidden category some time after the event is over. For myself though, I would prefer the categorisation simply be hidden on the article and not moved to the Talk page (as it makes it a lot more work if you have to do something to every article). Kerry (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages shouldnt be ugly mess if they have been tagged correctly. The problem with generic titles as such there is nothing about where who or what - I really think the location is as important as the date, as the whole edit events can be anywhere and confused if named with such universal names - so pointing to the punjab item is a good guide as to naming...qualificatory comments on mainspace should not be an issue - that is where most readers/users go first JarrahTree 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd actually prefer lists being created since most of the meetups include a list of editors and we can backtrack that easily. The advantage of that is that if these new editors start an article that is later deleted, I'd prefer keeping a red link around for later reference (or preferably, a draft). However, given the volume of these kinds of categories within Category:Wikipedia edit-a-thons (Category:Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism events alone is over 1400 pages across subcategories while Category:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group editathons is a bunch of small subcategories), maybe this is just an issue of first impression on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do want to follow up and say I would also support a template on the talk page as a temporary measure during the actual creation so people don't just go around CSD similar things in volume without knowing what is going on (not as though they should anyways). The problematic pages then could either be WP:RM to draftspace rather than deleted. This one is from 2014 and perhaps just make it sort of a rule as part of the final cleanup to delete/TFD the template and listify the translucations into a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Move to Talk Page if Kept This never should have been on the article page itself, hidden or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename and move to Talk Page if Kept – an article should be categorised only via defining info found within the article. Moving the category to a talkpage will be done via a bot and is no extra work for editors (unless Wikibomb 2014 is still producing articles). A way of doing this for current articles is to devise a template for the talkpage to add to existing ones (see eg Talk:Chin_Gouk where a Wikibomb 2014 template could have been added, and the category would be added by the template rather than directly: see eg {{Punjab editathon 2016}}). Oculi (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the subject, or really even the article, and purely self-reference which is to be avoided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (listify if necessary) per comments above. New Wikipedians should not be being taught categorization that muddles encyclopedia content and encyclopedia administration (e.g. Helen McGregor (geologist) does not belong in Category:Wikipedia meetups by type) - we see far too many Wikipedia initiatives that get this mixed up. Initiatives like this tend (perhaps inevitably) not to clean up after themselves. A much more appropriate way to maintain a list of articles affected by a particular initiative is to create a list (e.g. see Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb#Articles_created) - a list can include redlinks, can be watchlisted, can include notes about each entry (e.g. marking those articles that someone has signed up to work on) - on the other hand, a category tag could easily be removed (e.g. if a user considers that the article no longer needs improvement by that initiative or edits are rolled back because of copyvio etc). DexDor (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining, fails WP:SELF. Someone can always list them on the project page, if they wish. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 19 August 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:People with strabismus

[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this condition defining for those included? Maybe (kind of) for Marty Feldman, but in general, I would suggest not. It's more like a physical quirk and generally does not dictate how the person is otherwise treated or thought of. Maybe a list could be produced, if entries could be cited to reliable sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we should probably have a higher-level discussion of what medical conditions are worthy or categorization and what are not; we may find that some we would think trivial are actually defining for certain people (as alluded to above); so, we ought to be more rigorous as some of these folks are still living people. There are numerous conditions, large and small, that we should consider together, because tackling them one by one will either lead to inconsistent results, or leave us with a patchwork that seems sufficiently incomplete that later editors will re-create what was deleted figuring that their condition of choice needs categorization, too. And we should always keep in mind that we're an encyclopedia so that what comes to mind when thinking of someone (what probably defines them in the broadest sense) may not be encyclopedic (like baldness, shortness, overweight, bearing facial scars, or whatever). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll grant that Marty Feldman built a lot of his career as an actor on having an oddly google-eyed appearance that made him the go-to guy for oddball character roles like mad scientists or their assistants — but even then, it was less about the strabismus per se and more about the way his eyes seemed to bulge out of his eyelids (which is attributable to Graves disease, not strabismus). So I wouldn't call it defining even for him — and I can't really see a case for calling it defining of anybody else here either, given that in most of the articles the category declaration itself is the only appearance of the word "strabismus" anywhere in the entire article. A list of notable people with the condition could certainly be included in the article on strabismus, if their inclusion in that list was properly sourced, but it's not a good basis for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- if kept this needs a headnote explaining what strabismus is. Certainly, the category should be purged of anyone where the bio-article does not name the condition, by name or by synonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is anyone who is notable specifically for having this condition (not someone who is notable as an actor etc who happens to have this condition) in which case purge and add category text clarifying inclusion criteria. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being cross-eyed is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_17&oldid=1138409579"