Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Category:Pages with expired Show by templates[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 as obsolete. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created when {{show by}} was a standalone template, but now that it is a wrapper, this category is no longer used. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (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:Architects by activity[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 "by specialism" (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The inconsistency came to light with the recent creation of Category:English architects by type. The most suitable upper level category at the moment is Category:Architects by activity. In my view neither name works well, I would suggest Category:Architects by specialty fits better with the contents. Architects are architects, but they often specialise in, or are primarily known for their work on a specific building type. It is a similar approach to the existing Category:Engineers by specialty. There is the secondary question of whether Category:English architects by type is a premature, over specific subcategory, but I suppose this can be dealt with separately if needed. Sionk (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak support: I'm not over-keen on using the non-British "specialty" (cf. "speciality") where the only national sub-cat so far is "English", but "specialty" is used in various other sub-cats of Category:Scholars by subfield. If I were starting afresh I would suggest "Architects by specialism", but that word does not appear to be used in any current categories. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent oppose - I don't object to a renaming in principle, but please choose an alternative term. "Specialty" does not exist in British English - the word is speciality. It would be especially inappropriate for a category about English people or any other British nationalities. For Wikipedia to continue to work as an international resource, I recommend that you come up with a different word. Cnbrb (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sionk, Fayenatic london, and Cnbrb: There is consensus about renaming as such, but here we are left with three different renaming suggestions. Isn't there some way you can get to a more specific consensus? Marcocapelle (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no objection to Category:English architects by speciality. Sionk (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likewise have no objection to that. Can we use speciality in the English sub-cat, per WP:ENGVAR, and specialty in the parent, for consistency with some of its siblings? – Fayenatic London 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on "specialty" for the parent categories because then it's favouring/favoring USA English, and giving British English it's own quirky little niche. WP:ENGVAR states that "Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other". Why not use specialism? It's the same across all English variants, as far as I know. If we could agree to that, it would solve the problem.Cnbrb (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly support that. If it is approved here, I would nominate the "by specialty" siblings to use "specialism" too. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 4 March 2017 (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:Right of asylum by country[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination also contains the subcategories of this (all "Category:Right of asylum in Foo") as well as Category:Right of asylum by continent‎ and its subcategories); I haven't tagged them because I am still not aware of what automatic tool can be used to speed this up. Reasons: we have only 3 or 4 articles on "Asylum in...". We have no articles titled "Right of asylum in...". There is a good question whether Right of asylum shouldn't be just moved to asylum (disambig). For now, I think we should simplify the related categories. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:08, 9 February 2017 (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:Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire[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, per the two opinions expressed and the implicit admission of the nominator. If anyone would like to close this in any other way, I would not object, being that I expressed my opinion in this discussion. (non-admin closure). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, for now it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a clear keep, IMHO. There is already a subcat with 10 articles, and I myself know a few more in the Ukraine. It is at a logical place in the category tree, and should stay there. The fact that editors haven't populated this category yet, does not detract from its use and potential. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, additional subcategories are needed. Added one. For the other governorates, we don't have the articles about those populated places yet. --Wiking (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw this nomination. I wonder though if it's necessary to diffuse this category by governorate as it seems to lead to very small subcategories, but that may be for a next time. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2017 (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:Fictional massacres[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) 07:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in it. While massacres occur frequently in fiction, those massacres rarely, if ever, get their own article. JDDJS (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to have this really. Kellyanne Conway's gaffe on TV is the only reason this popped up and is not notable enough for it's own category. --Charitwo (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it time to become populated For example Category:Tugboats_in_fiction started out with very few articles but over time has grown and now contains 11. How many articles is considered the minimum? Btyner (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is not massacres in fiction, but 'invented massacres' or 'fictitious massacres'. Oculi (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now If we can eventually get up to 5 or so articles, no objection to recreating (albeit probably with a different name). At this point, it does not serve a navigation function which is the purpose of categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only two articles are "Great Jedi Purge" and "Bowling Green massacre"; one is an established fictional massacre while the other was a false statement by Kellyanne Conway. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 05:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fiction" implies uses in literature or the other arts. Since when is Kellyanne Conway (who I have never heard of) a fiction writer with a meaningful impact on culture? Her statement is not fiction or a work of art, just political bullshit. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2017 (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:Jewish American journalists[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: don't rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1. That was the name of the cat before it was moved without going to CFD.

2. The "new" cat is not correct anyway. Some of the people on the list may not identify as Jewish, but they are of Jewish descent, so the original category is more correct. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. For the sake of consistency, the category should not be moved. Every other occupation is written as "Jewish American ________" -- e.g. there is no Category:American actors of Jewish descent, there is Category:Jewish American male actors and Category:Jewish American actresses. The fact that there is a list dedicated solely to Jewish American journalists also is evidence to show that there is a legitimate consensus that some journalists' Jewishness is notable. There is also a long history of Jewish American newspapers and publications, such as The Forward, Tablet (magazine), etc. I agree with you that people who do not identify as Jewish should be removed, but I think the original category is incorrect and does not fit with the other categories that we have. Werónika (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Weronika. It appears that all other categories of this type follow "Jewish American" formula. If you think all of them should be renamed, that should be proposed instead. However, I think "Jewish descent" is a nebulous categorization and sounds much more awkward. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per both previous editors, that this is the name of the beast in its category tree. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:OCEGRS, no indication that Jewish journalists, and those of "Jewish descent" regardless of how remote, function differently than their gentile counterparts. Apparently, no article about Jewish journalists or Journalists of Jewish descent and I seriously doubt anything but a list could be constructed along either of those lines; but, to what purpose? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46 fell for a logical fallacy regarding categorizing these types of categories, and -truth be told - he is not the first. The reason for categorizing is not how they function as journalist" per se, but if they are notable and distinguishable for being Jewish. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear how one measures their notability for being Jewish, does their Jewishness need to have the same coverage to meet WP:GNG? And what about such a trivial thing as "Jewish descent", which could be many generations ago with no conceivable impact on the way they function as a journalist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I have always insisted that descent categories should not be used for more than a couple of generations. Debresser (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons listed by Werónika. The Jewish American press is a notable topic in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2017 (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/2017_February_9&oldid=1138410779"