Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7

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

December 7[edit]

People of African 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#People of African descent. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize (or delete if there aren't any subcategories), it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 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:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back[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 (Talk) 11:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of user categories per WP:USERCAT: Categories which group users by advocacy of a position, Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive, created primarily for humourous or satirical purposes, Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly and defies USERCAT in those ways, I don't think there's any question of that. But sure, we could debate this again, I don't really care either way. I just saw this cat and was like, wow, isn't Wikipedia better than the 2001-2010 Wikipedia I used to read, with its silly quirks and MS Paint maps? Cats are really supposed to be legitimate and useful now, instead of some popularity vote option... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes, there is a reason: Jytdog was indef blocked by ArbCom; LHvU has no blocks and was simply retiring from WP. That's a huge difference; let's please not openly defy ArbCom and support reinstatement of blocked users, especially through something as arbitrary as categories... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't advocating a position on deletion in either direction, only noting a previous similar discussion and asking how it differs (which you have done, thank you). On a separate note, I disagree with your statement "let's please not openly defy ArbCom and support reinstatement of blocked users" as it seems to suggest that editors are not allowed to openly express their disapproval of Arbcom decisions. That would be...unfortunate.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the difference you point out to be very relevant. Both categories clearly violate WP:USERCAT, regardless of if one user was indef blocked by arcom and the other retired. It would be a shame if that particular distinction had any bearing on whether this category were kept or deleted, in my view. VegaDark (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cats are not supposed to be advocacy and this is disruptive. The user was indeffed for off wiki harassment for those not paying attention to ArbComm (a good thing) Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories should not be used to protest an ArbCom decision, it is unnecessarily devisive. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A well-intended gesture, but in my view ultimately unhelpful to moving forward in a difficult situation. (Just as one for-instance, it'd of course be wholly out of bounds for anyone to make a category to express the opposite view, so in the extent to which more conversation needs to be had about the underlying question--in my view, at this time it does not--I think it's much more appropriate to stick to the traditional venues for it. E.g. talk page on the ArbCom motion is this way.) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know this comment isn't supportable by any present guidelines so I'm not even going to try, I just think that sometimes you need to let a community do what it needs to do when a widely respected member departs. This is not a comment on the Arbcom case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. First of all, for what it's worth, I'm not protesting ArbCom. I think their motion is appropriate given the circumstance. That being said, I still think Jytdog should return to face the music, and furthermore, merely expressing that opinion is perfectly acceptable, as several well regarded editors have already done so on his talk page. Benjamin (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete, largely per what Girth Summit wrote below, which has swayed my vote. I believe the delete votes are misinterpreting the situation and indeed ArbCom decision and thus are flawed. ArbCom has indefinitely banned jytdog, not permanently banned him. Thus the category is not protesting the ArbCom decision. In 12 months time ArbCom might well accept an appeal from jytdog should he decide to ever try to return - all the category does is say they want him to return or try to return in the future by appealing the block. And I think it is harmless.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was entirely in support of our decision, but that doesn't mean people can't say they miss the guy. And even if it had been created to stick it to arbcom, I hope "sticking it to arbcom" isn't a deletion criterion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still violates WP:USERCAT plain and simple, there's no arguing that it breaks Wikipedia's rules, so I'm surprised you're endorsing this??? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is typically the sort of thing for which userboxes can be created. A category is really over the top. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misuse of the categorisation system. Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunate though this situation may be, the purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, not just to make statements of opinion. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If people want this user back, then they should head to ArbCom and get a good, solid case together. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is not a protest against an ArbCom decision. ArbCom said that if Jytdog wanted to start editing again, he needs to contact them first to discuss it - this category has been created to encourage him to do that. That said, I'm voting delete because it's still advocacy - encouraging him to change his mind. I believe the category was created with noble intentions, but I think we need to respect his decision. Many people (including myself) have left messages of support on his talk page (and if I'm honest I think that we should probably build a statue to him somewhere), but it seems somehow disrespectful to have a category of editors who want to sway him in a certain direction about a deeply personal decision. (Plus consider the reverse - surely we couldn't have a category of 'Users who hope that he never comes back'!) GirthSummit (blether) 18:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's hard to disagree with Girth Summit's perspective. I'll just add that this post-Arb effort is a mixture of WP:SOAP, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTFREESPEECH all rolled into one. Reviewers working AfC/NPP handle a fair share of COIs quietly behind the scenes, and I can't recall any cases that we had to hunt down phone numbers. I've heard positive things about Jytdog and I realize it's hard for those who have had positive experiences with him to accept that he's gone. I can sympathize as it relates to the loss of a Wiki friend - be it collaboratively or simply fun banter - but I also know and firmly believe that strong-arm tactics cause more harm than good. It has been proven repeatedly that when editors, new or veteran, are approached in a civil manner, (including COI editors - excluding vandals), they are far more willing to follow WP:PAG and listen to what you have to say. More simply put, they just need a bit of guidance, patience and understanding, and more often than not, they respond willingly and appreciatively. As the saying goes, you can catch far more flies with honey than with vinegar. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful in building an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT. "Wikipedians who wish" is a completely inappropriate naming convention in a system meant for collaborative purposes. It does not help the encyclopedia to categorize users based on what they wish for, regardless of the topic. I would highly support deletion of any other categories that begin with "Wikipedians who wish". In addition to that, the subject of this category is one that also violates WP:USERCAT as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position, which is explicitly mentioned as inappropriate in the guideline. While expressing this notion on one's userpage seems perfectly reasonable, there's no encyclopedia-benefiting reason to justify a user category to express one's wish for any particular user to come back. I would not consider the fact that this user has recently been involved in an arbcom case to be any more reason to delete that if this were any other user. VegaDark (talk) 08:14, 12 December 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:Afrotropic ecozone biota[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reason: (1) To match the article (Afrotropic ecozone redirects to Afrotropical realm), (2) Consistency of category name structure with other species-by-region categories (e.g. Category:Biota of Africa). Alternatives (e.g. Category:Biota of the Afrotropic ecozone) could also be considered (personally I think "ecozone" is clearer than "realm").
Note: The category was originally named "Afrotropic biota"; the "ecozone" was inserted by CFDS.
Note: Any changes resulting from this CFD should also be made (e.g. by a subsequent CFD/CFDS) to other categories (e.g. the fauna/flora subcats). DexDor (talk) 18:53, 7 December 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:American Christians[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. While acknowledging the arguments about the challenges of maintaining this category, and the trivial manner in which it is applied to many articles, the general consensus is somewhere between keeping the category and discussing categorization of people by religion in a broader context (and without targeting just one particular mid-level category). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's little possibility that this category can be properly maintained over the entirety of Wikipedia. From what I am able to tell, the application of this category to articles has been spotty, at best, over the last twelve years. There are a couple of relevant points on the category's talk page that I will include within this discussion that, I believe, should be considered when discussing deletion. StrikerforceTalk 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the category's talk page, I submit the following for consideration -

1) From @AnthroMimus: - assuming all the other objections (and there are many) are resolved in its favor, my question would be: Whom do you suppose will use this list? Is there really someone out there who might say, I want to read an article about a random American Christian, I wish there was an encyclopedia that had a list that I could pick from? Yet people evidently spend their time jumping from article to article to tag with this category.
2) Also from @AnthroMiums: - Another reason this category should be killed outright is that it is rife with selectivity. For example, Watergate Felon Charles Colson (later radio "evangelist") is not included. Nor is the founder of the reborn Ku Klux Klan William Joseph Simmons, who was a teacher in a Methodist Episcopal Church. Nor any of the priests involved in the Church pedophilia scandal (including the bishops and cardinals who hushed it up). Were these people not Christians? Or does this list only include "good" Christians? And who decides?
3) From @Son of Somebody: - What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? In the US, a person must claim to be a Christian or Jew for any hope of social advancement, save academia, and to achieve elective office.
For reference, this category was previously discussed here. StrikerforceTalk 18:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deleting, while admittedly there are issues with the tree of Category:People by religion, we cannot delete one random category from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Religion categories are supposed to include the relatively hand-full of people for whom their religion is a defining trait, instead of a trivial aspect of their lives (such as being bald, or having blue eyes). We are not aiming at a full list. Dimadick (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but consider selective pruning. Not all Americans who are of Christian faith or background should be in this category or its descendants, rather only those for which their American Christian-ness is a defining feature. Better off handled on a case by case basis. Similarly, we generally don't (or shouldn't) frivolously categorize actors, scientists, and other non-political persons by political party, even if such information is verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The nominator's rationale makes sense to me. Also would like to echo @AnthroMimus:'s concern. There is no reasonable way to adjudicate who gets into this list and who stays out. In response to @Marcocapelle:'s concern: yes, a deletion here would introduce inconsistency, but then the way to address that is to debate the deletion of the other categories as well, rather than to keep this one. I don't think that sticking to the lowest common denominator always produces the best results. Sometimes, disruption is essential to progress. A really paranoid android (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress is being made here by means of consensus rather than by means of disruption. It may be helpful to start discussing the issues of the entire tree at Wikiproject Religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle - I thought I'd clarify my position a bit more. "Disruption" doesn't mean that we don't reach a consensus here. I am not proposing some sort of revolution / going against Wikipedia norms of behavior. Rather, it means that we make this change, even knowing that there will be a known inconsistency in other parts of the Wikipedia content. And we do this because it is the right thing to do, rather than the easy thing to do. Set aside the inconsistency that you pointed out for a moment. Would you agree that the change proposed by the nominator is the right thing? If yes, then I think we are in agreement. All I'm saying, in addition, is that the inconsistency be resolved by discussing each one of those other categories on a case by case basis. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is notable enough to be kept, I also think it is a feature worth noting about the person as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least Containerize. I've looked at a few of the bios of people I was surprised to see in the category because I didn't know that their religion was anything they had talked about. And, lo and behold, on nearly all of the few I looked at, there isn't the slightest mention in the article about the subject. If it's not relevant enough to merit discussion in the body of the article, methinks it doesn't belong in the cats. Another article merely mentioned being raised Christian (or a denomination); does that mean that they really are in a defining way? We all had beliefs in our youths that we've since discarded (sorry, tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny believers, I've left those folds); I'd hate to be labelled a Category:American Tooth Fairy believer due to my past. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize. The 299 articles in this category despite the tag should be moved to appropriate subcategory. Although slightly contradictory, I usually wish that religion categries should stick to Nationality religion format, which is the case here (instead of being split in ethnic/regional/descent/occupation/hair colour/whatever imaginary intersections), but "Christian" is too vague and must be precised. Place Clichy (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize, that can be done without breaking the category structure (which is what I earlier objected against in the discussion about deletion). Note that this is my second vote in this discussion, but the discussion is also about two different proposals. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons mentioned above by Carlossuarez46. What is going to happen here is that editors are going to see this category and think, "Oh, I just read/ wrote an article on a person who is a Christian, let me add this category to that person's article". And since the categorization as Christian will mostly be accurate, it will not be removed. If we could limit ourselves to using it only for those articles where the subject had a Christian identity as an important part of their overall identity, that would be one thing. But this category isn't going to end up being applied that way. It is going to end up appearing on lots of articles where the subject merely is Christian, because that is how lots of editors believe categories are supposed to be used, and I doubt the resulting category of articles would be particularly helpful, interesting, or useful. A loose noose (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Oppose - WP:POINTY and misguided nomination overall, pretty similar to another cfd of this same category 11 years ago (see here). The fact that a category is overpopulated does not call for the entire category been deleted. Similarly Carlossuarez46's and the immediately above vote are born out of a misconception, if a article does not meet the criteria of WP:CAT/R than that category should not be in a category pertaining to religion. This requires only a simple edit and not a whole system redo which would be highly disruptive. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also similarly opposed to the call to containerize, there have already been attempts to contanarize this and other categories, which have resulted in hoards of over-specific and useless categories on Wikipedia, which in turn end up being nominated later for deletion and in whole are a complete waste of time. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are many people for whom religion is defining. Some of them it is not further refined either in sources or in their self-identification beyond Christian. Some of them also do not have occupations where the intersection with Christianity is defining. While we can split many of these out by state, some people it is incredibly hard to split out by state. This is a justified category. Sub-catting is often needed, but this proposal to delete is not the way to do that. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep What in the world would you do with Category:American Christians by denomination, Category:American Christians by state, and so on? Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per WP:CATEGRS, the category is never supposed to be comprehensive of every article subject who is Christian. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Why is it being from the United States makes some Christians uncategorizable? This is a pretty absurd nomination, frankly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 14 January 2019 (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:African-American supercentenarians[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Category:African-American supercentenarians. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no good reason to single out african americans by age. We have a parent cat for Super old Americans that works just fine. This goes back to how the 110Club forum categorizes people into four big groups by color (one of which is Latios, which is not a color, but that is another story). Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 7 December 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 supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in the cat. The parent cat is enough to handle rhese pages Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at the pages in question would show they are already categorized as Singaporeans. Noting they happened to pass 100 years is fairly trivial but if someone wants to use that cat that is fine. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Your proposal would remove those two articles from Category:Singaporean centenarians. It is up to you to explain why you consider that an appropriate action. I see no justification for doing so, because it seems to be undisputed that they are (or were) Singaporean centenarians.
If you consider that categorising people as centenarians is trivial, then you are of course free to propose the deletion of Category:Centenarians and all its subcats. But unless and until there is a consensus to do so, you need some rationale to justify why you want to remove these particular pages from the centenarians catgories, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two pages, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not effective one-offs. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Singaporean centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 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:Spanish supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two redirects and a list page. Pointless cat Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you mentioned, there are two redirects and a list page. These should be upmerged, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) @Legacypac: That is irrelevant. The pages currently in the category clearly do belong here, so if this category is to be deleted, its contents should be merged to the parent categories. Your proposal would e.g. remove List of Spanish supercentenarians from Category:Spanish centenarians, but you give no reason to do so and I don't see how it can be justified.
This is one of about a dozen similar categories for which you or @The Blade of the Northern Lights have in the last few days proposed deletion rather than merger. I don't see any indication that either of you understands the crucial distinction between deletion and merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only actual page here is titled similar to the category which is redundant. We don't need a cat copying every page title out there. The other titles are just redirects and most redirects are not categorized. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: I will try again. Why exactly do you believe that List of Spanish supercentenarians should be removed from Category:Spanish centenarians, as you propose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Why do we need a category that repeats the page title of the only actual page in the cat? I could create 5 million needed cats based on page titles if this is really useful. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: please read what I actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one page and two redirects, so its a useless category, which is meant to be for a group of similar articles, not effective one-offs. The nom is correct in that it is redundant for the article to have a category all to its self. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Spanish centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Spanish centenarians. Why do you and Legacypac want to do that?
e.g. why should List of Spanish supercentenarians be removed from from Category:Spanish centenarians, which will be the effect of deletion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 8 December 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:Nigerian supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages. No point to be this specific. Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fancruft cat not something with parent cats. Centenarians is also a useless cat - we don't make pages about people only because they got to 100 years old, any more than we categorize by hair color or because they made it to 90 years old. Nationality is already correctly applied to these bio pages so that is a red herring. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Please read what I actually wrote. The effect of your proposal is that the contents of this category should no longer be categorised as centenarians. There is no consensus to delete Category:Centenarians, so why do you want these pages to be removed from Category:Centenarians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on any of the other category nominations in this batch, in this specific case neither article should be in this category. Both should be in Category:Longevity claims (and one of the two I intend to nominate for deletion fairly soon). Neither of these are remotely validated supercentenarian cases, which is what these "Supercentenarian by nationality" categories are for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: if you believe that an article is incorrectly categorised, then recategorise it.
However, what has been proposed here is to remove these pages from all centenarian categories solely because the category is small. Small categories should be merged, not deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Nigerian centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents, since the articles will just end up being manually added to them anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. Rzvas (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (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:George W. Bush sibling group[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 (Talk) 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:58, 7 December 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:Whitney family of Connecticut[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 (Talk) 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable family, non-defining category per WP:NONDEFINING. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. The fact that the Whitney family published a genealogy in 1878 does not make it noteworthy, nor does the inclusion of more notable families (i.e. the Bush family) within it. See also the equally arbitrary, non-notable, and largely redundant template {{Whitney family of Connecticut}} --Animalparty! (talk) 07:45, 7 December 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:Hungarian supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One page (up for deletion) and one redirect does not a category justify. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Hungarian centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. BrownHairedGirl is also right in that while the article still exists, it needs to be categorized. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article is at AFD is irrelevant. So long as it exists, it needs to be categorised, and if the AFD closes as "delete", we can make appropriate decisions then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:- My view is that these small, overly dilutory categories shouldn't exist. I also think that the all of the longevity stuff needs a huge overhaul, so any category we stick this article in now as a result of a hypothetical merge might not be the one it ends up in in the end. It's not worth reading more into my opinions than that. Reyk YO! 08:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: I am not reading into your opinions. I'm commenting on the effect of your proposed action.
Whatever your intent, the effect of deletion rather than merger will be to remove articles from categories to which they belong, so long as those other categories exist.
If a subsequent discussion reaches a consensus to delete or merge any other categories, then their contents will be recategorised accordingly. However, unless and until there is such a consensus, these pages should continue to be categorised in the relevant existing categories. Failure to do so pre-empts the outcome of discussions which haven't yet happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading my previous comment, it sounds a lot snippier than I really intended. Reyk YO! 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents, since the articles will just end up being manually added to them anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. Rzvas (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (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:German supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 4 pages in this cat, one is a list of German Supercenturians, two are redirects to lists, and the last is up for deletion. Cat serves no real purpose with only one or maybe zero actual pages in it Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:German centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:German centenarians. Why do you and Reyk and Legacypac want to do that?
For example, why should List of German supercentenarians be removed from Category:German centenarians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 8 December 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:Turkish supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet more GRG overcategorization. Category consisting of exactly one page, Yakup Satar (and for those at WP:WikiProject Longevity I'm thinking of merging that article anyway). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like the ones I nominated. Same issues on all of these. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Turkish centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 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:Ukrainian supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category consisting of exactly one article (and someone more familiar with military history than me might want to look at the notability of said article). More GRG overcategorization. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a single page does not need a cat. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Ukrainian centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the page to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is CFD, where editors discuss how to categorise articles which currently exist, as this one does. It is no part of en.wp practice to remove an article from relevant categories just because one editor has a personal view that the article is dubious.
So long as it exists, why do you want to remove it from Category:Ukrainian centenarians? Merger would remove the small category (which I agree is a good idea), while ensuring that article remains properly actegorised so long as it exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl Categories based on age alone are pretty pointless. We don't do so for people in the 80's or 90's, so why add that man to a category for 100's? It's just cruft. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12: if that is what you believe, then feel free to open a CFD nomination to delete all age-related categories. (Tho fer gawds sake do it in one group nomination, not in dozens of one-off nominations as Legacypac and The Blade of the Northern Lights have done, disruptively wasting everyone's time by duplicating the same discussion in a dozen different difft places).
But en.wp works by consensus, and there is as yet no consensus to delete all such categories.
So as long as those categories exist, it is disruptive to go around randomly removing articles from valid categories because of your personal belief that the whole topic is cruft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is disruptive is attack other editors at CfD. Content not contributor. Why indeed are we categorizing 100+ year olds but not 90+ year olds. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One may have the view that 100+ categories should be deleted as well, and everybody is entitled to nominate the centenarians categories for deletion. However, as long as these are not actually deleted, it is beyond doubt that 110+ people belong in a 100+ category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents, since the articles will just end up being manually added to them anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. Rzvas (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (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:Puerto Rican supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More GRG overcategorization. 3 pages in this subcategory, 2 of which are redirects. All of these are best in Category:American supercentenarians without this hyperspecific category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy pasted vote misnames the nominator. No one wants to remove these from the American cat, the point is the American cat does the job. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac:, sorry to misname the nominator, who was actually The Blade of the Northern Lights. (That's partly a consequnece of the decision by Legacypac and TBOTNL to make a long series of almost identical individual nominations, rather than grouping them. A series of copy-pasted nominations nevcessitates copypasted responses)
However, the point remains that the effect of this nomination would be to remove the pages from both Category:American supercentenarians and Category:Puerto Rican centenarians. If nobody wants to do that, then why has TBOTNL proposed doing exactly that?
It is disappointing that neither @The Blade of the Northern Lights nor @Legacypac appear to understand the effect of what is being proposed by their series of delete nominations, and that repeated efforts to explain to Legacypac the difference between merger and deletion appear to be unsuccessful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your "repeated attempts" were a series of mocking comments on a string of CFDs all made before I even saw the first comment. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:American supercentenarians. My above point still stands but merging makes more sense then deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you are supporting an action (deletion) which you accept will require rectification, rather than supporting the alternative (merger) which won't. And you are pursuing this line across a dozen CFD discusison.
What are you up to? Is this some form of intentional disruption? Or has someone somewhere canvassed you to come to this discussion and vote for something who effects you don't care about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl I found my way here from Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People where I monitor the various AfD's etc. Nobody canvassed me nor am I disrupting. I don't find arbitrary age categories useful; I think they are cruft and should all be eliminated. However, if you or others want them then by all means add pages to them, but that doesn't change the fact that this category under discussion is useless and should be eliminated. I don't have all year to spend talking to you across a dozen CfD's about the same issue, so this will be my last comment on the matter as I have given my view of the matter. Either accept it or reject it. Please stop pinging me about these pages and spreading the idea that I am acting in bad faith. Just because I don't use this part of Wikipedia myself doesn't mean I can't help mop up the mess I see on the floor. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12: you are still dodging a very simple question. Why do you support deletion rather than merger?
The only answer I can see is an implicit one: that you don't care about the damage done, because of your belief that arbitrary age categories are cruft which should be eliminated. That's perfectly legitimate view; I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, but I'm sure there is a case to be made for that. If so, make a group nom to deleted the lot, and a WP:Consensus can be formed on whether or not to do that..
However, this discussion and the dozen other current CFD on supercentenarian categories are not about eliminating all age-related categorisation. They are about the fact that some categories are too small. If you and a group of others are trying to use these CFDs as a device to intentionally disrupt other categories which have not been nominated, then shame on you.
If you are, as you claim, acting in good faith, then please demonstrate it by ceasing to promote actions which will have a disruptive effect.
Oh, and if I reply to you, then I will ping you. You can make your own choice whether to respond to any ping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl I don't mind if you ping me in general. My point was only that I would like to end my part in this discussion and pings are invitations to continue when I didn't intend to respond. I certainly wasn't trying to control you in any way. The well-reasoned point you make coupled with the respect I have for your opinion has led me to change my view on the matter. I will change my vote to merge on this one, to conform to consensus, even though I don't agree with that consensus. I will review my votes on the others as well (no promises on what I'll do). I reiterate that I came here in good faith and am not part of some sort of scheme. Thank you for the spirited discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Newshunter12. Sorry the debate got a bit heated, but glad to know that we eventually understood each other. {{smiley}
Merger preserves the rest of the category structure, and ensures that each article remains in the most specific relevant category ... while getting rid of small the small category.
Obviously, any merger of any cateory is without prejuduce to any future decision to delete or merge the target categories. It keeps that option open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents, per Oculi.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. Rzvas (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (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:Norwegian supercentenarians[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with two pages, one of which is a redirect. More GRG overcategorization. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. No room for growth Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:Supercentenarians and Category:Norwegian centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newshunter12: Fair enough, this category is too small. But the effect of deleting the cat rather than merging will be to remove its contents from all supercenterarians categories, and also from Category:Norwegian centenarians. Why do you and @Reyk and Legacypac want to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl Well, I can't speak for the others, but for me this cat is useless and the one page in it Herman Smith-Johannsen, would still be listed under the Canadian supercentenarian and male supercentenarian categories. I don't feel that anything is being lost here, but I respect that you feel otherwise and I have seen plenty of old AfD's from years ago to know that you worked very hard to stem the GRG fancruft tide. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but unless you come over to my side here we will have to agree to disagree. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that Herman Smith-Johannsen has no place in Category:Norwegian centenarians? Because unless you dispute that he is a Norwegian centenarians, then deletion is the wrong option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl Grouping people into categories by age is pretty pointless, so I see no value including him in Category:Norwegian centenarians. We don't do so for people in there 80's or 90's, so why 100's? It's just more cruft that people have built into Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12: en.wp works by WP:Consensus. If you want to propose the deletion of Category:Centenarians and all its subcats, then please do so. Then we can all work with whatever the outcome of that proposal is.
However, that's not what this CFD nomination is about. Category:Norwegian centenarians exists. This one is about whether we have a specific category which intersects supercentenarians with Norwegian nationality.
You do not dispute that Herman Smith-Johannsen is both Norwegian and a centenarian. There is no proposal her to delete Category:Norwegian centenarians. So why do you believe that he does not belong in Category:Norwegian centenarians? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. Rzvas (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents per above. It would be better as the same category. Also it is too small for single category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2019 (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:Half Man Half Biscuit[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Category:Half Man Half Biscuit. Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only albums and songs subcategories, which already interlink from one another, an eponymous category for this band simply isn't necessary. WP:OCEPON StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:08, 7 December 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:Template-related 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as redundant and unclear. Nothing's in here but a random smattering of selections from the target category or one of its other subcategories. Virtually everything classified as a template-namespace template is going to be template-related. The scopes overlap too much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 7 December 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_December_7&oldid=1073191614"