Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 5

November 5

Category:Greek MPs 2015–

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek MPs 2015– to Category:Greek MPs September 2015 –

Nominator's rationale: This parliament session emerged from the election of 20 September 2015. SoSivr (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fact that it refers to those elected in September can adequately be dealt with in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for the time being. If another parliament would be installed before the end of this year, just hypothetically, then we may rename this category to September starting date after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 9 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:Ships in English history

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 09:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ships in English history to Category:Ships of England

Nominator's rationale: merge, apart from ships in Norwegian history (see this discussion) there aren't any other "ships in history" categories - which makes perfectly sense because in the end all ships will become part of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Every notable subject of today becomes "history" eventually. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the target is not all that heavily populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 8 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:Rusyn-speaking countries and territories

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) 12:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rusyn-speaking countries and territories

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category only contains villages, I can't quite imagine that the "fooish-speaking countries and territories" tree is meant to contain villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming to Category:Rusyn-speaking villages? Solves the problem you identify, although I don't know whether categorising villages by language be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that this alternative would be a case of WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- See Places inhabited by Rusyns. A number of eastern European ethnicities have become very dispersed over the centuries. I suspect that in some of these they are a minority or got removed in the migrations at the end of WWII. However, I wonder whether Category:Places inhabited by Rusyns might not be a good target, matching a main article; and Populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This includes former places inhabited by Rusyns, without specifying if it is current or former. It's a case of doubt whether this is suitable enough for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assigning language at this level is too imprecise because it is fairly changeble. 100 years ago Hamtramck, Michigan was a Polish-speaking city, today it is much more heavily an Arabic-speaking place, with an addition of Bangladeshi, but maybe majority English speaking, Polish a primary language to a few but actually spoken on a daily basis by virtually no one in the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a list at Places inhabited by Rusyns, but it lists districts etc. None of the three articles for the current contents (2 villages in Croatia, and a small region in Poland) mention that the population are Rusyn-speaking, let alone give citations for it. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Categories within the 'Administrative territorial entities by language' scheme are intended to contain countries and territories, or at least regions, not villages. While language can be a defining feature of certain populated places at a municipal level, it cannot be effectively scaled. Consider the hypothetical example of Category:Populated places in the United States by language. It may be defining for San Antonio, Texas, that more than 40 percent of its population is Spanish-speaking (by the way, What is the necessary threshold to designate a place as a "Foo-speaking place"?), but tens of thousands of other places will end up in Category:English-speaking populated places in the United States due to nothing more than the fact that English is the dominant language in the United States. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (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:Articles using citation needed template with unnamed parameter

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) 02:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Articles using citation needed template with unnamed parameter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is no longer used, it was added to Template:Citation needed on 24 July 2010 and removed on 11 October 2010. A different tracking category for use of an unnamed parameter was added later, but no need to redirect to that one since the nominated category will never be added to any pages. Zyxw (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. If no process is adding articles to this category, the notice on it to not delete it even if empty should be ignored. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking maybe it should be speedy instead of here, will do that if I come across any others. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:55, 6 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:Conservative parties in Uganda

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents as nominated and discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Conservative parties in Uganda to Category:Political parties in Uganda

Nominator's rationale: This category is practically empty and there aren't that many articles for Ugandan political parties to begin with so I think it's safe to say that this is WP:OVERCAT. Charles Essie (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge also to Category:Conservative parties as the next available parent category for the Conservative parties category tree. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I never thought of that. Charles Essie (talk) 16:12, 6 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:Streets in CERN

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: move page to Streets in CERN. The category has already been emptied. – Fayenatic London 19:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Streets in CERN to article [[]]

Nominator's rationale: This category has been created and contains two non-notable stubs - but the "Category" page contains a large chunk of sourced text which would be appropriate for an article but is out of place in a category definition page. The two PRODded stubs on individual streets could usefully be redirected to this new article. PamD 09:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps best converted to "List of Streets in CERN": it could make an interesting list, with each item linked to the person for whom it was named. PamD 09:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creators's rationale:I will happily accept to have this category converted into a "list article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliophilen (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 November 2015

Delete category – I do support the "list article" approach to preserving the information. Senator2029 “Talk” 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note If you just want to have this content in an article, there's no reason to delete it. Remember that it's now possible to move categories to mainspace, so the only reason to delete this is if you don't think it belongs anywhere. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category. Move to mainspace as an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:16, 22 December 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:Violent non-state actors

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. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Violent non-state actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined inclusion criteria Tim! (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete presumably everyone convicted of a violent crime qualifies for inclusion; then you have questionable issues of whether certain Palestinian or ISIS organization are "state actors" or not, as each claims state status. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is categorizing by what the article isn't. It would be better to group by what these are: terrorist groups, independence movements, organized crime outfits, troubled movie stars, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - defined at violent non-state actor, and also avoids POV/WTA problems with deciding which groups get called terrorist. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from our article: "Violent non-state actors (VNSA) are "individuals or organizations that have economic, political or social power and are able to influence at a national and sometimes international level but do not belong to or ally themselves to any particular country or state"" - no requirement for actually perpetrating violence or advocating or condoning violence is required. Presumably, FIFA, the UN, the Olympics, all fit this definition, so please add them if you think the category as defined by our article is not subjective or just plain wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's defined largely by a list of different possibilities of what the term might include though. That's a pretty open ended inclusion critera. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is where my second point comes in. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the definition to include use of violence. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The main article mentions different types of violent non-state actors that already have their own category (tree), e.g. terrorist groups. I can imagine we keep the nominated category as a container category for these types. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a category defined by the US military. The common term is "terrorist", but we have shied away from that as POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a subjective categorization, as pointed out by @Tim! and @Carlossuarez46. It makes almost as much sense as Category:Violent NGOs or Category:Violent dissidents. I don't see how POV/WTA is avoided rather than intensified given the subjectivity of the whole thing. Quis separabit? 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - subjective? Compared to terrorist? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The violent here is a highly uneven line, and who is and is not non-state is questionable. To try to group together such unlike things does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The category is poorly developed, but can actually serve as a parent category to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Warlords. Dimadick (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The boundaries between "violent non-state actors", "guerillas", "paramilitaries", "liberation movements", "terrorism" are in some cases difficult to be defined, even by qualified authors, and this can become a source of unnecessary conflict.--Darius (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly as a container category for warlords, militias, criminal organisations, Irregular military and insurgencies, but there may be other articles not in one of those who yet fit in here. VNSA seems useful here as an objective and NPOV term. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 7 January 2016 (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:Violent non-state actor incidents

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. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Violent non-state actor incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: poorly defined inclusion criteria Tim! (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comments on the similar cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comments on the similar cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comments this should be moved down to each of the different types of violent non-state actors that have their own category (tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and close to match the outcome of the VNSA discussion above. This may be useful for what the rest of us call (with our POV) terrorist incidents. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Delete as subjective but this category should have the same fate as its accompanying category, Violent non-state actors. Quis separabit? 17:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the category currently holds 5 articles, of which 4 are more specifically categorised. The exception is 1994 Shankill Road killings, whose other category Military actions and engagements during the Troubles (Northern Ireland) holds both state and non-state actions. As that incident was an engagement between two paramilitary groups, it is a rare case where the nominated category might have a useful purpose. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly as a container e.g. for Rampages, Riots and Terrorist incidents, but also holding other pages not so categorised. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 7 January 2016 (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.