Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7[edit]

Category:WikiProject Philippines members[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the WikiProject for the Philippines is Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. The name of this user category should reflect the name of the WikiProject.  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BFA Senior League navigational boxes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only one eligible template at this time, there is not enough content to warrant a separate category. (@Quidster4040: notifying the category's creator) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepalese people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Category:Nepalese people. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The national adjective and demonym for Nepal is "Nepali". Please see the Nepali Ministry for Foreign Affairs or the CIA Nationality Index. Same arguments as #Category:Nepalese Wikipedians below.  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, the article Nepalis exists since 2016 and the name of the article has not yet been subject of discussion. But this is an internal Wiki argument and may well be overturned by a discussion about usage in reliable sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepalese Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Category:Nepalese Wikipedians. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The national adjective and demonym for Nepal is "Nepali".  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singaporean Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Category:Singaporean Wikipedians. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The national adjective for Singapore is "Singapore". "Singaporean" is the national demonym.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Antiguan and Barbudan Wikipedians[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. ℯxplicit 02:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When a country's name consists of two distinct regions, the preferred national adjective is the country name. Thus, "Antigua and Barbuda".  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Taiwan user 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Taiwan user categories. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While both "Taiwan" and "Taiwanese" are used as national adjectives for Taiwan, the term "Taiwanese" is often used to denote the inhabitants of the island prior to the arrival of the government of the Republic of China in 1945. Therefore, "Taiwan" is the preferred national adjective.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While "Taiwan" is used as an adjective, it is not reasonable to think that a reader will be able to differentiate pre-/post-1945 based on such a small change. Nor is it appropriate to assume, as the proposed change does, that all Wikipedians who self-identified as being of Taiwanese descent were necessarily referring to post-1945 descent. The fact is that "Taiwanese" is the most common adjective used to denote people or things from Taiwan (pre-1945 and post-1945), and we should adhere to that practice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While both terms are used, the CIA Nationality Index gives preference to "Taiwan".  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the CIA is not necessarily the definitive source for national adjectives and demonyms. In this instance, I think the weight of issues favors "Taiwanese"—e.g. the fact that the article category is Category:Taiwanese people, that Taiwan Wikipedians could easily be confused with Category:Wikipedians in Taiwan, that "Taiwanese" is a more natural English adjective, etc. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communication degree holders[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. Timrollpickering 21:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPDEF - categorizes biographies by a non-defining characteristic. Very similar to the example of a film actor with a law degree. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an entire category for a degree holder seems like minutia. MartinezMD (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not recall us having other categories for graduates by subject. In this case, the subject is not even a clearly defined one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. People are defined by what they do or become, not the degrees they earn or hold. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The analogy to law degree/lawyer is poor, because Communication degrees aren't prep for a single profession, which is why Chassagne, Winfrey, Neller and Schwartz are all on record saying they made primary use of their degree in their widely disparate work settings. The notion that the subject isn't well-defined is simply wrong -- the National Communication Association and International Communication Association would be happy to supply the details; this is an academic area of study, and universities worldwide offer the degree from quite large and well resourced programs. And the notion that it's not defining is also shaky -- Oprah Winfrey, Mike Rowe, Al Roker, and the others on that list are in a fundamental sense communicators. That's not an objective trait that's measurable, but the fact that they share t hat degree is objective and can be confirmed from published sources. It's a substantive root of their notoriety, and tracing it to their college degree makes it measurable. As for the fact that it's not done for other degrees, that's not an argument; perhaps it should be. Final comment: overpolicing minor features like this weakens Wikipedia and makes it less useful and less accessible. This is a close enough call that the utility of the category should tip the balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doylesrader (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What, in your view, is "the utility of the category"? I don't think there is any question about the characteristic not being well-defined; instead, it is a question of one's degree not being a defining characteristic of individuals. Winfrey, Rowe and Roker may be known for being "communicators" (may or may not be defining, but definitely not well-defined) but they are certainly not known for holding communication degrees (well-defined, but not defining). (Also, please sign your posts with four tildes as follows: ~~~~.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Steel Mills in Karachi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. ℯxplicit 02:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my reasoning was flawed. I still favor merge based on your reasoning. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Georgia (country) user 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: keep. ℯxplicit 02:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Change user category names from Wikipedia convention to natural English. "Georgia (country)" is rather annoying to native Georgians and they should be allowed to use their own country's name in their own user categories. I am opposed to changing "Georgia (country)" anywhere else.  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Georgia (country) is the standard here on Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and reverse merge per Marcocapelle. Hyperbole aside—"Georgia (country)" does not disallow anyone from "us[ing] their own country's name", given the country's name is right there (just with a parenthetical clarifier)—user categories are fundamentally not for the self-identification of the users in the category, but for editors who may be able to use the category for some collaborative purpose. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We need these Georgians to be lead collaborators. Category:Wikipedians from Georgia (country) does not mention the national adjective "Georgian".  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it need to? I'm afraid I don't see how the question of naming, or more specifically of using the word "nation", relates to Georgian editors being collaborators... -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose (or reverse merge, where the targets exist). By long convention WP uses Georgia (country) and Georgia (state) to disambiguate them. We should stick to that. It is not the fault of the country in the Caucasus that a British colony in north America was named after King George. I am sure it is also annoying to people from the State of Georgia that their state cannot use its own name alone in WP. Attempts at that have had to be resisted periodically. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Austrian military personnel killed in World War II[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. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Austria did not exist during World War II, it was fully integrated with Nazi Germany as the province of Ostmark, former Austrians who served in WW2 did so with German uniforms, in German formations, and fully integrated with personnel from other provinces of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I does not say that they served in the armed forces of Austria. It's possible that they died while wearing the uniform of France, Germany Italy or the UK. I interpret it to mean that they were 1) Austrian, 2) served in the (a?) military, 3) were killed in WW2. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no Austrians during World War II - the country didn't exist, so that your interpretation is a null set. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just because a people doesn't have a sovereign nation state doesn't mean it's not a people and has never meant it doesn't get a category. Just have a look, for instance, here and here. We have categories e.g. for Polish, Czechoslovak, Croatian, Ukrainian, and Irish people of World War I. We have categories e.g. for Czech, Azerbaijani, and Ukranian people of World War II. We have never tried to force a clean, intersection-free partitioning; we have always gone by what is natural and useful to readers: there are separate categories for Czechs and Czechoslovakians, for Russians and Soviets, and so on. There is also the issue of Austrian emigrants and refugees who enlisted in Allied armies. They identified as Austrians and fought for Austrian independence. Calling these soldiers "Germans" would be absurd; Germans were the guys they shot at. Damvile (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, people in this category were German soldiers when they died but they had been Austrian people for the larger part of their lives. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to Conversation Below I think my preference would be Category:German military personnel from Austria killed in World War II but that only makes sense if my rename below prevails. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is no pressing or obvious reason for change Hmains (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II[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: no consensus. It may be worthwhile to pursue a group nomination with the other similarly named categories, but there is insufficient support to rename only this one, hoping that the others follow through in separate discussions. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Austria did not exist during World War II, it was fully integrated with Nazi Germany as the province of Ostmark, former Austrians who served in WW2 did so with German uniforms, in German formations, and fully integrated with personnel from other provinces of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons as wrt merge proposal immediately preceding this one. Damvile (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively no, because to the best of my knowledge there were no soldiers in World War II who identified as "Israeli" in the modern sense, who were considered "Israeli" by their fellow grunts, or who have the label "Israeli" retroactively applied to them by modern historians. Israeli statehood was a distant goal during the war, not something that anybody had ever actually experienced.
(There were, of course, soldiers who identified as Jews, and guess what − the Category:People of World War II by nationality does contain a Category:Jewish people of World War II. Do you object to this category on the grounds that Judaism is a religion and not a country? I didn't think so. I am reliably informed that the Jewish experience of Nazi aggression was a tiny bit different than the non-Jewish experience, so it's a meaningful distinction, so the category is helpful − country or not.)
An "Israelis of World War II" category would indeed be anachronistic. An "Austrians of World War II" category is the opposite of anachronistic: it faithfully reflects how people − idiots and intellectuals alike, Austrians as well as non-Austrians − thought, felt, and wrote at the time. The only faction in World War II that denied the existence of an Austrian nation were the Nazis, and even among card-carrying NSDAP members there was occasional dissent about the matter. Given the choice between siding with Hitler's most loyal acolytes or siding with current scholarly consensus, I think Wikipedia should pick the latter. Damvile (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, create a subcategory Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II (German army). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:German military personnel of World War II from Austria to match Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II from Ukraine or something similar as proposed by Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 is correct that the current title gets the impression they are in the non-existant "Austrian military" but, rather than merging, I would favor keeping a category either by area or ethnicity. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, what would we do with the 20 or so other categories that could be misread in the same way? Rename those too? Your idea is clever but I'm opposed to anything that treats the Austrian nation differently from other nations, especially if done in a way that just happens to align with a majorly major Nazi platform plank. Even more especially if done pursuant to a proposal that contains the phrase "province of Ostmark". (From its creation in 1938 to its dissolution in 1940, it was legally the Land Österreich, or State of Austria. "Ostmark" is a 19th-century pan-German coinage with a somewhat convoluted life story, but in the context relevant here it's simply a Nazi propaganda term and we're on treacherous ground.) Damvile (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that any solution that we might consensus on should be consistently applied to other relevant nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone were to do the appropriate all-cats-at-once group rename proposal I would support it. Damvile (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is renamed by consensus along the lines of RD, we can nominate the others. A cursory glance shows: Albanian (which fielded irregular armed forces - partisans), American (ok), Australian (ok), Belgian (ok), Brazilian (ok), British (ok), Bulgarian (ok), Canadian (ok), Ceylonese (the category contains both those who were members of the Ceylon Defense Force and members of the British forces), Chechen (should be renamed Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II from Chechnya), Chinese (ok), Croatian (ok), Czechoslovak (some served in various irregular forces or in other nations' forces), Dutch (ok), Filipino (some served in irregular forces, some in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, others in the American forces), Finnish (ok), French (ok), Greek (ok), German (ok), Hungarian (ok), Indian (similar to Ceylonese), Iraqi (ok), Italian (ok), Japanese (ok), Latvian (the only person there fought in the SS on behalf of Germany, not Latvia), Malta (it's not clear whether the only person there fought in a Malta unit in the British forces or in some independent Maltese unit), Mexico (ok), New Zealand (ok), Norwegian (ok), Polish (ok), Romanian (ok), South African (ok), Southern Rhodesian (some served in British forces), Soviet (ok), Spanish (officially neutral, some Spaniards joined the Blue Division and fought for Germany, others joined French forces), Tongan (the only person there fought in the New Zealand forces), Yugoslav (ok). Notably, the use of Soviet, Southern Rhodesian, Ceylonese, Czechoslovak, and Yugoslav are in line with what countries existed at that time (even those not fully independent), and Austria, Chechen seem the only ones not. Also, Irish volunteers seem to be categorized with the armed forces in which they served (chiefly the British), further illuminating that these are categorized by which military the person served, not which passport the person (later) held. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If this is renamed by consensus along the lines of RD, we can nominate the others." − The risk is too high that the second nomination would not gain consensus. It would serve, after all, no purpose other than restoring the consistency that the current nomination would destroy. I'm worried that many editors might not see the point. The only safe, and therefore the correct, way to do this is all-or-nothing.
"Czechoslovak (some served in various irregular forces or in other nations' forces)" − It looks like you're still contradicting yourself. You wanted to rename the Austrian cat because Austria was not independent during the war. Well, neither was Czechoslovakia. Like Austria, it had lost its independence months before the war started. Unless I'm misreading you, you now argue that Czechoslovakia should be an exception from the general rule you proposed because a number Czechoslovaks served in some other countries' militaries. Well, so did a number of Austrians.
"Notably, the use of [...] Czechoslovak [is] in line with what countries existed at that time (even those not fully independent)" − The opposite of this is true. At the outbreak of World War II, in September 1939, Austria still existed as a coherent polity (a Land, a top-level federal subject, of the German Reich). Czechoslovakia was carved up in October 1938 and completely disappeared in March 1939. In other words, it was Austria that still existed in some limited capacity for part of the war, and it was Czechoslovakia that did not. I realize this is a legal technicality, but it wasn't me who started being legalistic and technical about this. I'm not denying that the Czech, Slovak, Polish, etc. nations did exist even during times when their respective nation states did not. Your proposal is denying that the same is true for the Austrian nation. Why? Damvile (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "It's simply a Nazi propaganda term and we're on treacherous ground." New Swabia certainly matches your description since it wasn't real in any sense but, unfortunately, the German annexation of Austria was real so our recognition of that isn't buying into Nazi propaganda, it's acknowledging a historic fact. Yes, I would favor renaming other similar categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Nobody denies the annexation was real. But post-annexation Österreich was still officially called Österreich even in Nazi legislation. Its government was the Österreichische Landesregierung. Its governor was the Reichstatthalter in Österrreich. Its gazette was the Gesetzblatt für das Land Österreich. "Ostmark" was a semi-experimental propaganda term that didn't work out because even hardcore Hitlerites felt it was jarring and over the top. The word was abandoned early into the war because propagandists realized it was a failure. It disappeared from public discourse until it was revived after the war, by different factions with different motives. In present-day German, the term is used a) in scare quotes, b) with some other accompanying indicator of derisiveness, or c) by revisionists. A contribution that treats "Ostmark" as the official or conventional name of the province will inevitably raise eyebrows. The way the whole thing is worded is two small steps away from pan-German irredentism. Damvile (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is no pressing or obvious reason for change Hmains (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books about economic inequality[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. ℯxplicit 02:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To broaden the category. Not all the articles are actual physical books and there are other works - films, paintings, websites etc which could sit happily in a broader category. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we shouldn't remove all books of this category from the tree of Category:Economics books and upmerging to Category:Economics books isn't appropriate either with the current amount of articles in the nominated category. Note that the category now contains 15 books and 2 reports and reports are imho not wholly inappropriate in a books category. If more types of works exist about economic inequality, then Category:Works about economic inequality may additionally be created as a new parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per the reasoning of Marcocapelle. Oculi (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both no one can objectively state how much about economic inequality must a book/work be for inclusion, and point to reliable sources that show that it is at least that much about it. Some folks have asserted, strenuously opposed by others, that the Wizard of Oz is such a book: Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may be unsufficiently populated, but there should be dozens of articles about social inequality books, films and other works. --PanchoS (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flora of West Africa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 30#Category:Flora of West Africa. ℯxplicit 01:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to be for the same region. DexDor (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of Category:Flora of West Africa (and in particular the linked article West Africa) is that it excludes the Maghreb (i.e. it's just the dark green area on the map). I checked a sample of articles in the category and none appear to be limited to North Africa. It'd probably be a good idea to change to a less ambigious map and then check all the articles in the category. DexDor (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed Cat:FoWA to use a less ambiguous map (showing the same region as the map at Cat:FoWTA - i e. not including the Maghreb) and checked the articles in the category - none were in the Maghreb but not in WTA (but I made some category changes for other reasons). DexDor (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favour of User:Fayenatic london's scheme because (1) it does not fit with the scheme defined at Wikipedia:PLANTS/Using_the_WGSRPD#Category:Flora_of_Africa (which has Africa, including the islands in the Atlantic, divided into 10 regions) and (2) it is unnecessarily complicated for those unfamiliar with the category structure (e.g. many articles referring to tropical West Africa etc have been placed in Cat:FoWA and not in Cat:FoWTA). DexDor (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Thanks for resolving the misleading map. Now, how does my proposal not fit with the defined scheme? In practice, what is the difference between our proposals? We both favour having articles only in the 10 WGSRPD Region categories, and none directly in FoWA. Is there really only one difference, namely the fate of the FoWA page: a container category in my proposal, but perhaps you would suggest redirecting it after the merge? I can accept the latter, if both FoWTA and FomAO will be placed in the current parents of FoWA. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Housing struggles in Brazil[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. ℯxplicit 02:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one actual article. No article defining the category. Shanty towns and squats, the sub categories, are not generally regarded as protests or struggles. Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree with the latter, the two subcategories are not about struggles, the article is not about housing but about land. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepalese VFX artist[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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not correctly named according to Wikipedia's naming conventions: it needs to be "artists" rather than "artist" as we declare categories in the plural, not the singular, and it needs to be "visual effects" rather than "VFX" as we don't use abbreviations in category names. It may also be preferable to simply upmerge this to the parent categories Category:Visual effects artists and Category:Nepalese film people, as it's a WP:SMALLCAT for two people and neither of the parents is large enough to really require subcategorization (and no, there isn't yet any established scheme of subcategorizing visual effects artists by nationality, either) -- but if it is kept it definitely needs to be renamed. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom (rather than rename). Oculi (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably Upmerge; if not expand as nom. Certainly do not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vandalized works of art in Washington (state)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Vandalized works of art in the United States. ℯxplicit 02:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: single article contained in this category, seems to exist only because of the Lenin statue article Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US parent. However, this tree needs wider pruning as the US category has a lot of single member subcats; in fact few with the recommended 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and nominate siblings per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and nominate siblings Unless we get up to 47, 48 or so well populated state categories and need to complete the set, categories should 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mont Pelerin Society members[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. Timrollpickering 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, being a member of the Mont Perelin Society is a non-defining characteristic, it is often not even mentioned in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not normally allow categories for Society memberships. A lot of them are listed in the main article, including the Board 2008-10, which suggests that the article is not being regularly maintained. I would have expected to find the current board. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not see any problem with this category. In terms of economic history, it is important to know who is or was a member of the MPS. When I come across a member in a book or article, I add that category in the German or English Wikipedia, and indicate the source in the Edit Summary. --Qyerro (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memberships are usually utterly trivial details in a biography. For example, Herb Grubel does not even mention this membership on his own home page. The article Mont Pelerin Society already offers lists of presidents and members, so the topic is well-covered in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership in the MPS is not a "trivial detail" at all. For decades, the MPS was a fairly unknown society whose members had a major impact on the economic policies of various countries. It is not that easy to get an overall view of the MPS network. Many members are not so interested in their membership being exposed. As far as I can see, Herb Grubel's membership is only known through a 2010 leaked MPS document. --Qyerro (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you have it. It is a notable topic, but it doesn't define the people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I clicked about half of these articles and most the ones I looked at made no references with the others just making a passing mention. The one exception I saw ws Pascal Salin, who was president of the organization and it's mentioned in the intro, but--even here--it's not clearly defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what is your job here? Search for categories that could be deleted? Or do you also do something constructive? What do you suggest? What should we do with this information about 190 persons? --Qyerro (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions: you may add information about people's membership to their biographical articles, with references to reliable sources. You may also update the Mont Pelerin Society article, per comments of Peterkingiron above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social economists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Category:Social economists. ℯxplicit 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not have an article on Social economics except as a redirect to Socioeconomics and I think that neither of the articles would belong in Category:Socioeconomics. No need to merge, the articles are already in the tree of Category:Economists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see a hypothetical biography subcategory under the Category:Socioeconomics tree, but this is under the Category:Social economy tree and I'm unclear on the inclusion criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Social economics is not the same as socioeconomics. It is a field in its own right. See for example here. Sooner or later there should be an article on social economics.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: If you want to take a shot at creating a main article and find 5 biography articles that fit into that description, I'm more than happy to change my vote now or be open to recreating the category later. My only concern is with the category going before that main article that will establish that inclusion criteria within Wikpedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this link, it looks like social economics is a synonym of Behavioral economics. However neither of the two biographies in this category belongs in that area. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_7&oldid=1083677664"