Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 15

June 15

Category:Christian religious scandals

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 to Category:Scandals in Christian organizations and Category:Scandals in Eastern Orthodox organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
  • Category:Christian religious scandals to Category:Christianity-related scandals
  • Category:Eastern Orthodox religious scandals to Category:Eastern Orthodoxy–related scandals
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name isn't perfect, so better proposals are welcome, but there is no "Christian scandal", neither is there an "Eastern Orthodox religious scandal". These scandals are related to Eastern Orthodoxy resp. Christianity, but they are scandals by secular standards. PanchoS (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of "related-" as it's inherently ambiguous/subjective - for example, a religious organization may be connected to a scandal in a good way (e.g. a religious person is a victim of a scandal, a religious organization uncovers a scandal in a different organization). I'm not convinced there's a need to rename these categories, but if there is then the categories should be made more precise (e.g. "Scandals in Christian organizations"). DexDor (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally agree with nominator and with opponent. I like the alternative "Scandals in Christian organizations", it would address arguments from both sides. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but IMHO, it's no good idea to dismantle an established scheme at this level. These categories don't seem to be any different than in other areas. If there is a more general problem with the distinction between Category:Controversies and Category:Scandals, then we need to nominate the whole category tree. Otherwise we should find and apply halfway objective criteria, such as allegations of misconduct, or substantial moral outrage, per scandal. --PanchoS (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT "Scandals in Christian organizations" is a better alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Laurel Lodged: a much better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. What is a "religious" scandal? Is a minister committing sex acts with children a religious scandal, or just a scandal? What of a supervisor of ministers moving them to appease local outrage at their sex acts with children without telling those getting them why they are being moved? I could actually see an argument that the former is not a religious scandal, but the latter is, but it seems a needlessly fine distinction. I think the general invocation of Christianity works in this case though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 29 June 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:Protestant religious scandals

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: there is consensus to abandon the nominated category, but a weakish consensus only of what the proper course would be, so defaulting to an upmerge to the parent Category:Protestantism-related controversies (which also gained the most support). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and one child category. (The article may also be upmerged to the other parent category, the child category is already in that tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 15 June 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:Misconduct by Catholic clergy

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 Category:Catholicism-related controversies and Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains one child category so it's a redundant category layer. (It doesn't need to be upmerged to the other parent category, because the child category is already in that tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is abundant material for expansion. Alternatively, alt rename/expand to Category:Catholicism-related scandals. These are not just controversies but outright scandals by secular standards, so there needs to be a distinction. --PanchoS (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose upmerging Category:Catholic sex abuse cases. While a main article doesn't automatically mean a category has to be kept, this is a clearly defined, particularly well populated, and self-contained category with several subcategories that are clearly related to the sexual abuse cases, and would suffer from being generalized to "Catholicism-related controversies". --PanchoS (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification @PanchoS and Marcocapelle: Oh, I see the confusion. I want to keep Category:Catholic sex abuse cases but reparent it under Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. Sorry for being unclear. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect and Marcocapelle: Ah, I see. So the latest proposal is to dual upmerge Category:Misconduct by Catholic clergy to Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy and Category:Catholicism-related controversies, right? I'm not totally convinced, but could live with that proposal, as long as possible future recreation isn't precluded, if we don't come up with better ways of categorizing the quite abundant material we have in this area. --PanchoS (talk) 01:48, 17 June 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:2016 in Sacramento, California

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) 00:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The city should yield enough content for categorization by century, but not by individual year, for the time being. PanchoS (talk) 09:05, 15 June 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:Miss BC World winners

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent article, Miss BC World, has been deleted at AfD so I don't believe this category it notable. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 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:Organizations by beneficiaries

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) SSTflyer 11:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the current contents is already contained within Category:Philanthropic organizations - which is at a lower level in the tree of Category:Organizations - and it's rather unlikely that it will get content from outside Category:Philanthropic organizations in the future so it seems to be redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I can see this category isn't well populated, but beneficiaries are a usually WP:DEFINING and obvious aspect of an organization, so beneficiaries are one of the more useful criteria to subdivide organizations. I'm not even sure Category:Philanthropic organizations is correctly defined here. Philanthropy states that "not all charity is philanthropy, or vice versa". In practice, today, philanthropy is usually associated with large-scale donations, often in the form of private foundations. Also, not all charitable work is done by organizations with legal charity status. So if the category isn't deemed sufficiently filled, we should rather upmerge Category:Charities by beneficiaries. --PanchoS (talk) 08:21, 15 June 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:ISIL commanders who were officers during the reign of Saddam Hussein

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 to both Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members from Iraq and Category:Iraqi Army officers. There's consensus to upmerge to the former category. The double upmerge to the latter category was proposed late in the process, but it received no opposition and that's unlikely to change if this were relisted. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:ISIL commanders who were officers during the reign of Saddam Hussein to Category:ISIL commanders who were officers in Ba'athist Iraq
Nominator's rationale: A Stefanomione creation: not sure if we want to keep this or not, but if it is kept is should be renamed. Saddam Hussein was not a monarch, so calling his tenure a "reign" is a little POV. "in Ba'athist Iraq" is probably a more neutral description. If users prefer deletion, I could go along with that as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 15 June 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:Political works

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. There isn't clear consensus that either of these categories can easily be merged into the "Works about" tree. In any future discussions, participants should consider the entire category tree that would be placed under a "Works about" tree. Even if the articles in these categories should be merged, there were only hints of editors considering whether the sub-categories were appropriate for that tree. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are two very similar forks as in this earlier nomination about Historical works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to support the latter (military), tend to oppose the former (politics). Political art is a genre, so political works are works of that genre. Political music, posters or slogans aren't about politics from an outside perspective – they're usually communicating a particular political perspective or agenda. Political fiction mostly isn't about politics either, a (real or fictive) political setting may just be used as a canvas for the actual narrative. --PanchoS (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge Category:Political works to Category:Political art. Oppose the military one. These both seem to be by-type cats, not necessarily only about-type cats. I think we should be careful about how to integrate these trees with the rest of the "works" sets of trees. I'm not exactly sold yet on whether we even should. - jc37 22:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 15 June 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:Bridge-tunnels in the United States

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 all parent categories as discussed. In practical terms, no upmerging to Category:Bridges in the United States (or subcats thereof) and Category:Tunnels in the United States (or subcats thereof) was necessary, since all articles were already in subcategories of both. So the result essentially was "merge as nominated". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too few combined bridge-tunnels in the world to even start categorizing by country. The articles are in several U.S. categories, so merging up to North America for this very specific construction type is preferable. PanchoS (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a doubt, a more specific category will always be: more specific. However the point is that we want category schemes to be universal and consistent, while not creating WP:NARROWCATs. This per-country category might be borderline legitimate because of its four entries, but as the scheme would invite a set of tiny WP:NARROWCATs, categorizing by continent is both sufficiently precise and preferable. --PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, they might even be merged to a global level. Not all sets within the buildings and constructions tree are 'big' enough to categorize at country level, that's just unavoidable when getting very specific about the type of construction. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 15 June 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:Royal family orders

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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC and WP:USERG/WP:RS
Currently, this category doesn't aid navigation because it only contains 1 article: the poorly named Royal Family Order. I don't think populating the category is a good idea at this point because that article relies almost entirely on user generated citations from Blogspot, Pinterest and a royal fan page which is a weak foundation for a category. But, once the article is renamed and properly sourced, we can go from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Hipposcrashed as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, but that main article is based entirely on blogs and the accuracy of its claims are questioned on the talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 June 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:European Union officials

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 for either direction of merge. A reverse merge wasn't discussed fully, and a separate nomination for that may be helpful, but this discussion appears to hint that there would be no consensus for that either. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think there are any people who we would categorize as a European Union "person" who could not be classified as a European Union "official". I suggest simply upmerging to the more general parent and deleting the redundant subcategory Category:European Union officials. ("People" fits better with the format of Category:People by intergovernmental organization.)Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 15 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_15&oldid=1074816764"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 15, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.