Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13

edit

Category:Coptic script

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) sst✈(discuss) 13:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small category, only holds one article. – Fayenatic London 23:12, 13 November 2015 (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:Coptic-speaking 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: delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This only holds a container sub-category by occupation, and is therefore an unnecessary layer. The sub-cat is suitably parented. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 13 November 2015 (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:Archived files for deletion discussions

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) 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, given how a page is put into this category. A page is put into this category when {{Ffd top}} or {{Puf top}} is transcluded or substituted; what this means is that since WP:FFD has discussions listed on daily subpages, this category puts the entire daily subpage into the category, not just the discussion for the file. At this point, this category includes essentially every WP:FFD daily subpage since April 2007 (and WP:PUF since July 2007), making it difficult to understand how or why this is helpful or accurate. Also, renaming this category to something along the lines of "FFD daily subpages" wouldn't seem to resolve this issue either since the page archives are accessible through Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Log (and WP:PUF through Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Archive.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: Agreed, so done. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (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.

People by language and occupation

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) 03:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots more languages
Nominator's rationale: Standardised and clearer naming. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 13 November 2015 (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:Early Modern linguists

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) sst✈(discuss) 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as envisaged by the category creator, Category:Linguists is now divided by century from C16 onwards. I have already moved other pages that were recently in this category; the remaining pages (Francis Lodwick, Justus Georg Schottel, Varadarāja) are all C17. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 13 November 2015 (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:Acehnese-language occupations

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 all. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these should be a container category like Category:Welsh-language occupations, but there are no language-related sub-cats. In each case the only sub-cat is properly parented without needing this one. – Fayenatic London 19:55, 13 November 2015 (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:Prestigious boarding schools

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty sure this violates our WP:POV policy, since it uses a WP:PEACOCK term in its title. Prestigious is a subjective term. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with the Whitewater controversy

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:BLPCAT
What's convenient here, is that these categories literally start with "People associated with..." and we have an over-categorization guideline discouraging People associated with categories. Specifically, WP:OCASSOC reads that "the problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of 'association; is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category." Not only that, but these are generally living people being "associated" with a controversy so there are WP:BLPCAT issues. If you need to put a disclaimer at the top of the category saying "Inclusion in the category does not necessarily imply wrongdoing" to avoid libel issues, you're already over the edge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Funandtrvl as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (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:Hillary Clinton controversies

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. The broader complaints here carry little weight as an article titled "... controversy" is objectively categorised under "controversies" – not that this is a necessary requirement for categorising there. Disputes over categorising particular pages normally belong on each article's talk page. – Fayenatic London 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word controversy is loaded and subjective. It's use is questionable in articles with context (WP:CSECTION), but as a category it's a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP mess. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category - not only is it a POV and BLP issue to attempt to group together all the controversies around a single current political candidate, it is unnecessary (the broader category can include all things, controversies or not), a COATRACK issue as originally created (it listed everything negative that involved her, not things sourced as controversies), and a meaninglessly small category of only several articles once the impertinent ones were removed. I really don't think Wikipedia wants to be a place where negative information about living people is grouped together into their own categories like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (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/2015_November_13&oldid=1077828612"