Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Category:Ancient Jewish villages in the Land of Israel[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. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less POV title. A classic trope is to claim that "we were here first", which is what this category is effectively doing for places which have been inhabited by many different populations over in some cases thousands of years. Let's be neutral and just call them "villages". Note: different arguments may apply to villages of more recent history, I just think asserting these 2-thousand-year-old sites are "Jewish" villages, when in several cases I've looked at the villages had overlapping populations of jews, muslims, christians at different time periods- may be problematic. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: per nominator. "Land of Israel" both sounds and is extremely unencyclopaedic and unprofessional. Quis separabit? 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - and remove the "Jewish" as we don't classify places by who lived/lives there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename How Jewish or not Jewish a village was before the advent of modern censuses often creates a clash between people who base their views off of readings of scripture that assume infallibility and no cultural biases on the parts of the human writers who created it and archaeologists who assume very close connections between ethnicity, culture, religion and artifacts found often in trash heaps. What this really means, is that the "Jewishness" of a village is too disputed, while its location in Israel is generally clear, so we should go with the undisputed category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't disregard whole fields of knowledge to make a point. Some Jewish populations are cross referenced by writings like the gospels and Josephus. Some Archaeological sites have Mikvehs in addition to trash. It's probably harder to make out a pure population, but that just mean the cat should be wider. So I propose Category:Ancient Jewish populations, and try to break down by period or polity. trespassers william (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with half, disagree with other half I agree we don't and shouldn't sort by who lived there, so "Jewish" can go, but is "Israel" the correct name for the country those villages are situated in? There were various names for this area in various times. That is why the name "Land of Israel" is being used, which encompasses all those names. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the question is whether the villages are from a specific period, and then for example "Villages of the Hasmonean Kingdom" or "Villages of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)" is valid. In case we are talking about archaeological cites, then current location should be utilized. I think the original meaning of the cat is the first case (villages of iron age and classic polities with Judean element), but the definition of the cat is blurred.GreyShark (dibra) 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but something like Category:Villages in ancient Israel would be better. However, I am not certain what polities WP has accepoted as appropriate for categories.
  • Rename Although the issue with "Israel" still exist. Ideally the Levant would be the most non-controversial title but then it would encompass a broader area. --Inayity (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is a category talking about sites which exist today in a country called Israel. No need to worry about what the land was called at the time - we categorize archeological sites by the country they currently reside in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2014 (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:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation[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. – Fayenatic London 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better to merge this up, rather than have finer and finer divisions of which particular part of LGBT rights these groups oppose. There is no such Category:Organizations that support LGBT adoption nor Category:Organizations that support LGBT hate-crime legislation and this is hardly defining for these entities.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Some organizations only oppose some LGBT rights, while not opposing, or while even supporting other LGBT rights. These categories are necessary to provide specificity and precision to the categories. I disagree that it's better to merge these up. I believe some or all of these have already been nominated in the past and were kept. - MrX 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad idea to use categories to write an article. We should focus on things which are WP:DEFINING, and slicing a broad-based advocacy group like Australian_Christian_Lobby into all of the things it supports and opposes at a micro-level like this is a bit exaggerated, and it's not what categories are for. We don't have Category:Organizations opposed to logging the Brazilian rainforests and Category:Organizations that want to save Yellowstone's wolves, and so on - we generally group them by broader themes. These are too specific.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When this first came up, there was some level of consensus that an article that fit multiple categories (adoption, survivor rights, etc.) would be placed in the parent category. I will post a link to the discussion when I have an opportunity to search for it.- MrX 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Better to have the distinction in this case, otherwise the "oppose LGBT rights" could cause confusion (i.e. one group explicitly opposes adoption but otherwise not notable for being anti-LGBT - ends up having cat removed, or on the other hand, comes across as more extreme than it is etc.) It's better to be specific, like how Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage retains it's categorisaton --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but that's the point of the nom - these are so fine-grained, any org which JUST opposes gay adoption but which is otherwise a staunch supporter of gay rights will not be DEFINED by such opposition on one point. Again, I pointed out that we don't even have a cat for those orgs which Support this - and I'm not convinced we need one either - if we Start breaking down political advocacy orgs with cats for their stance on every issue it will lead to massive category clutter. Cats are not meant to write an article, they are meant for navigation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all classifying a group by one political position (1) adds category clutter, is (2) not often defining, and (3) changes as times change - making this (and other political position categories) a temporary category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There is no reason to delineate the specific issues organizations take stands on. Taking these stands are not in general defining to these organizations. Beyond this fact, some organizations change their position on one or more issues. If we had in 2001 Category:Organizations that support legislation making sodomy illegal we would at some point have to accept that few organizations still took a position on that. To make it more complex, some groups will at one point actively campaign against legislation, and later on similar legislation not take a stand. Do they no longer oppose it? It is hard to say. On the other hand, the proposed target is even worse. The "rights" rhetoric in these cases is invoking only one side of the discussion, and by its very wording assumes who is right and who is wrong. These categories are inherently written with a pro-LGBT lobby view. They stink of being advocacy categories used to marginalize the opposition, and leave little doubt what the accepted view on this issue is on Wikipedia. If we don't want to violate our own NPOV rules, we should delete these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additionally these categories over simplify the positions of groups. I think that is the biggest issue. A group that has come out in support or opposition to a particular law on one of these or any number of issues may actively refuse to take a stand on the issue at other times. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proactively supported a law to ban housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Salt Lake City. It publicly declared its neutrality on the so called Employment Non-discrimination Act last summer. So how would it fit on a category related to that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another issue missed is that many of these groups primarily exist for non-political reasons. Their political policies are not really defining about them, and the current hot button issues tell us little about them. The path this leads to is tagging groups as Category:Organizations that opposed the abolition of slavery in the 1850s. Yet, is having done so in the 1850s at all relevant to an organization that exists today?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Both Carlossuarez46 and Johnpacklambert give very good arguments why, and I can add little to their cases. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I hate to pile on here, but I have to generally agree with those who have spoken in favour of deletion. It's problematic to categorize people or organizations by particular opinions or political stance simply because in many cases this is not a defining trait for the person or organization. Doing so is too "centric" towards one particular issue or viewpoint. As for the targets of the proposed merger, "LGBT rights" is pretty vague. I would have no objection to lists being made to house this information, as long as they are well cited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (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:Rangers F.C. captains[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 all 3 to players categories. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING; WP:OC#TRIVIAL. The defining characteristic of a football player is whether or not they play for the team, not whether they captained it. The team captain in football is largely a ceremonial / honorific role (unlike, say, cricket) and changes frequently between and even during games, due to injuries, suspensions, loss of form, etc.. For most club sides there are insufficient resources to accurately record who has captained the team; most statistical sites and books will record appearances and goals, but not necessarily the team captaincy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changes frequently during a game, no the person captaining the side permanently does not change during the game, if a player goes off injured then someone will take the armband for the remainder of the match as happens in any sport or event. The Hearts cat is the only one that has a slightly wider criteria in that it states must have captained a match from the start and even then that must be backed up by sources, if its not sourced then the claim has no business being mentioned in the article never mind in a cat. These particular categories are not about what defines a footballer and to say its an ceremonial / honorific role is very wide of the mark, a captain is as much a leader as the manager in a lot of respects. Sources are generally available to say who is club captain and clubs such as Rangers & Hearts have archive sites available as well. Im not saying they should be kept, I'm not overly concerned either way, I just feel the rationale is slightly flawed.Blethering Scot 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition if you truly believe a captain is a ceremonial / honorific role and doesn't define a footballer, what makes you think List of Scotland national football team captains is notable? I ask because equally your rationale can be placed on this article you created.Blethering Scot 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot compare club captains to country captains. GiantSnowman 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly can and will. There is no difference in terms of a defining characteristic or an honour roles JM states that a captain is. Sorry but the rationale applies equally to both. Your hardly going to find evidence Rangers captains meet GNG in a cat, and in addition GNG doesn't apply to categories as you well know.Blethering Scot 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, GNG applies to the topic; and if the topic is not notable then a related category certainly is not. If you can find the sources to create List of Rangers F.C. captains then we might have basis for the category. GiantSnowman 20:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with you, but well leave it at that. I think it wouldn't be difficult to create an article that would meet GNG, however i have absolutely no desire to do so. The point stands however and the rationale is flawed on a number of counts.Blethering Scot 21:29, 23 April 2014 (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:Jamaican people of Syrian-Jewish descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This entire cat seems to exist just for the Marley family based on a MAYBE they had distant Jewish-Syrian ancestry. Someone said They MAY have had something. And hence and entire cat is now on all the son's of Bob Marley's page. (and obviously Bob). Have not filed this before so not sure if i am doing it right.--Inayity (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Talk page deletion requests are not really subject to review here. I suspect this is really for the category. So this request is incorrect and the category (or talk page) is not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: absurd vanity category, created for one particular subject and/or family. Quis separabit? 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPCAT; all entries are not sourced and should be removed, which would leave the category empty and pointless. GiantSnowman 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course I have argued before that we should delete all the "of Jewish descent" categories. I will allow Jewish categories to be used for people who were Jewish by ethnicity but not by religion, or by religion and not ethnicity, but I see no reason to have categories that identify as "of Jewish descent" people who did not publicly identify as being Jews. Of course maybe it helps that the most likely way at present I see that I will ever have a child will involve someone who will get to decide if they are black or white, having a parent of both races, so maybe I have to open a view on race for some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent. Some such categories do allow some very remote ancestry. However, I do not think it is useful to split Jewish into sub-ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per Peterkingiron. I support Johnpacklambert's suggestion to consider the dozens of similar grand-child categories in Category:People of Jewish descent. For example, Sean Paul is in Category:Jamaican people of Portuguese-Jewish descent, which (assuming the fact is sourced) should be merged up to two parents. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 28 April 2014 (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:Persecution of gay and lesbian 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the contents, we should just use the broader 4-quadrant version here. One parent is Category:Discrimination_against_LGBT_people and one child is Category:Violence_against_LGBT_people, and this already contains Category:Transphobic violence (and I don't think it is meant to exclude same), thus the rename is more inclusive. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per these CFDs ([1], [2], [3]) regarding the term "repression", the container category wording is overly broad, subjective and emotive, and should be reworded. Quis separabit? 12:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trans is not considered a "sexual orientation", but I don't see any reason to keep it out, so your formulation is less broad and would exclude transphobic violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded; wish I could think of a better word than "persecution", which is subjective terminology. Quis separabit? 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed to make the category more inclusive and aligned with other similar categories.- MrX 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was prompted to look at this discussion by a message on my talk page. The renaming to "LGBT" sounds like a good idea, to match the breadth of the sub-cats. I share the concern about the POV nature of the word "persecution", but I note that this is one of several similar sub-cats of Category:Persecution. I don't think there is too much of a problem with using the term for a category of articles on the concept of persecution, but it is a highly POV term when applied to specific instances of alleged persecution.
    However, there is no point in tackling that piecemeal, so I suggest that the terminology be left aside until someone chooses to open a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. WP usually uses LGBT as an omnibus covering both these and some others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (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:Treaties in Geneva[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: listify at Geneva Conference and delete. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category appears to be for either (a) treaties that were concluded/signed in Geneva, or (b) treaties that include the name "Geneva" in the common name of the treaty. If (a), this is not part of an overall scheme of treaties by place of conclusion; such information is probably largely trivial and certainly not defining for the treaties. If (b), this is just overcategorization by shared naming feature. Either way, I think it should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; sharing the location of where a treaty is signed or what that it has a word in common is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another unneeded case of categorizaing by common name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify this is an issue for a set-index to solve. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- if we do not already have a suitable dab-page for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2014 (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:Prime Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as below. Tomcat (7) 13:29, 23 April 2014 (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:Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as below. Tomcat (7) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively: Chairmen of the Government of the Russian Federation--Tomcat (7) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (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:Prime Ministers of Russian Provisional Government[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as below. Also, an article was left out. Tomcat (7) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (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:Prime Ministers of 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as in Category:Heads of government of Russia. Also, article was left out. Tomcat (7) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (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:Audacity Innovative[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category created by COI/SPA editor in order to popularize two newly created articles. -SFK2 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2014 (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/2014_April_23&oldid=1138398946"