Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 27

March 27

Orange County Blues

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/rename. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changed their name during the offseason (again). – Michael (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (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:Critics of Judaism

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 both, but prune. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: after a detailed review, the American sub-category was found to contain only E. Michael Jones properly categorised as a critic of Judaism, so his article was moved to the parent category and the American sub-cat was deleted. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: If this category is going to be principally used to file actual Nazis, there's no point in avoiding calling it a category of anti-Semites. This is completely ridiculous. The BLP ban against putting living people in bigotry categories doesn't apply to the majority of people currently housed here. There are maybe five people in this category who are actual critics of Judaism, as opposed to bigots against Jews, in any meaningful sense, and they're Jews criticizing Judaism from within; it's laughably inappropriate to categorize them with Hitler, Goebbels, Streicher, Coughlin, Rockwell, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to do things the opposite way of what is effective and logical? Debresser (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So that no one slips through the cracks who, barring the euphemistic name, is productively categorized here - it'll be simpler to re-add those four or five people to a Critics category than to go through all the anti-Semites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Who says being an anti-semite is a defining trait? And how would be rename it? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the theoretical existence of potential edge cases is a compelling reason to avoid categorization of people for whom it is in fact defining, unambiguous and one of the chief sources of their notability, such as the ones I named above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no benefit in doing this, we need to assess the articles one by one anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune -- A destinction needs to be drawn between anti-Semites (who hate Jews) and those who criticise the religion. The category as currently named should only cover the latter. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune as above. Regarding the creation of a category for anti-Semites or the otherwise euphemistic sense of "critic", I don't think that requires discussion here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, okay, keep, prune and improve the category description. Hitler's "engagement in this criticism" was "a notable and significant part of [his] activity," so let's be less mealy mouthed about it and address this issue head on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (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:Soviet billionaires

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently has only one entry. And this person shouldn't really be in there, given that he became a billionarie only long after the Soviet Union ended. There were blackmarket millionaires in the Soviet Union, and a few with access to vast resources (think Stalin), but billionaires, in the classic sense, I am pretty sure wer not. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2017 (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:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal

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. Hut 8.5 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, as none of the recipients are known for being awarded this decoration. Nearly 400,000 were awarded in WWII, and more later. Fails WP:CATDEF due to the frequency of the award. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The medal for service (now replaced by something else?) was often an end-of-tour "thanks for coming" award. That leaves the medal for valor as the lowest such award (although I recall once seeing an Army Commendation Medal with "V" device).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vast numbers have been awarded. Nearly 400,000 for WWII. More than 30,000 for Korea. Nearly 720,000 for Vietnam (including more than 170,000 with 'V'). Nearly 29,000 for the Gulf War. More than 68,000 for Operation Enduring Freedom. More than 102,000 for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is essentially treated as just a service medal for doing your job properly. There can't be many long-serving individuals who don't have it. Non-defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has been awarded to thousands; not complete and as has been said of many German award cats that have been deleted, fails WP:CATDEF. Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The number of pages within the category makes it clear that there were too many awards of this for it to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (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.


Clarification of Chinese categories

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erk. I'd meant to delete this, as I decided the situation merited a discussion at WT:CFD. Started to feel like I might be tugging at the thread of a pretty large ball of yarn. DonIago (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right...as I said, I decided a CFD probably wasn't the best course of action without getting other editors' opinions, which I've solicited, though nobody's weighed in yet. If you think it's appropriate for Chinese Memoirs to be tagged even though right now I'm not proposing a course of action on it (I'd meant to delete this thread but Shawn weighed in before I got to it), you're welcome to tag it, but I think we should either not deal with it at all, or try to capture all categories evincing the same (potential) problem. DonIago (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2017 (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 from St. Charles, Virginia

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. While the discussion had little participation there are many precedents for this type of closure. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:58, 27 March 2017 (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 scientists who studied under Leo Strauss

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. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-defining category. Literally every academic studies under another academic or academics but they are not notable for their mentor but for their own work. TM 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. "Defining" doesn't mean "notable for." Being a student of X often is defining, even if it doesn't make someone notable. For example, country of origin is defining but very few people are notable because of their country of origin.--Jahaza (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strauss' influence on some of his students is interesting, but it is a small number of people that can best be mentioned in his article. TFD (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly rename. Being a student who follows in the school of a teacher is significant.--Jahaza (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a different subject. Not all or even most of his students followed in his school, while there are people who followed in his school who did not study under him. And it is not exact science which scholars can be considered the followers of his school. It's the sort of thing that is best discussed in the article, with internal links. TFD (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The fact that his students (or followers) have been given the name "Straussians" suggests to me that this case constitutes an exception. Normally, I would have voted to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify This opens up a bunch of categories for "Students of [X]" which is just unwieldy. Does this apply to someone just studied a class? Doctoral advisor? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify, per previous and also per WP:SMALLCAT, this is only a handful of articles for which we don't need a separate category also since there is no established tree for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repurpose if there are enough articles to warrant the repurposing. There's a reason that some academic databases, e.g. Dissertations and Theses from ProQuest, allow you to search dissertations/theses by author's doctoral advisor. If you're a Ph.D., the identity of your doctoral advisor is definitely significant, somewhat comparable to the ecclesiastical concept of apostolic succession (see our academic genealogy article), and as such this category, like tons of others like it that presumably don't exist yet, is quite reasonable. Either add text saying that it's just for Strauss' doctoral students, or rename to something like Category:Doctoral students of Leo Strauss if that wouldn't be clear enough. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (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:Confederation of German Trade Unions

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is actually what they call themselves in English.[1] It's a better translation and there's no evidence they're better known by another name in English-language sources. I have already renamed the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2017 (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:Arab studies

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 Category:Arab studies; no objection to making Category:Arabic studies a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to reverse a category renaming which has not been discussed. The category is for studies of the Arabic language, not the Arab people, and the undiscussed move, and several related edits, are inappropriate. Mhockey (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arabic is not generally used as an adjective except when referring to the language or in a few traditional phrases such as “gum arabic” and “Arabic numerals.” Then Arab studies is the scholarly term for research concerning Arabs and Arab World. It consists of several disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, linguistics, historiography and archaeology. Canbel (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the category is - or at least was - for articles relating to studies of the language. There may be a need for a Category:Arab studies also, but that needs to be a different category.--Mhockey (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be wrong: the category is not about studies of the language, but rather the culture. See e.g. such entries as Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arab World, Pontifical Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern studies! Debresser (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those articles should have been in the category. The point is that Arabic refers to the language and literature, so Category:Arabic studies must have been intended for articles relating to the Arabic language and literature. I'm open to suggestions about how to disentangle Arabic studies from Arab studies (studies relating to the Arab people and culture), but it cannot be right to mix the two up.
The same has happened to the article Arabic studies - which was about the study of the Arabic language and literature, and has been rewritten and renamed to be an article about Arab studies. There may well be a good case for an article about Arab studies, but to hijack an article about Arabic studies is not the way to do it.--Mhockey (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. First you said "let's change the name", now you say "let's change the articles". And I say: let's keep both and no problem. If you disagree, open a discussion on the talkpage or another discussion here, but this is going nowhere. Debresser (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "keep both". We currently have a category (and its eponymous article) which purport to deal with "Arab studies" - the study of the people - and no category for Arabic studies - the study of the Arabic language.--Mhockey (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be easy to solve. If sufficient content is available about each we can have a category about Arab(ic) studies in general and a subcategory about Arab(ic) language studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good suggestion. The academic study of Arabic has a long history, and certainly needs its own category. I thought it would be easier to get there by reversing the category rename (thus preserving the edit history), then setting up a category for Arab studies, if the consensus is that it is needed.--Mhockey (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (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:Football in 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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's an arbitrary assemblage of football codes which has three subcategories that are also in its parent category. There is no scheme for Category:Football by state. The only article directly in the category would still be Category:Sports in California so deleting outright would not stop anyone from navigating to this content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 27 March 2017 (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 Muhammad Ali

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Specifically mentioned as a kind of overcategorization at WP:OCASSOC – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2017 (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 Donald Trump

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. Hut 8.5 20:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Specifically mentioned as a kind of overcategorization at WP:OCASSOC – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2017 (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:Newman family (show business)

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 as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe the current name is confusing with another "show business" Newman family, that of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward and their three children, Melissa Newman, Nell Newman and Scott Newman (actor). The nominated Newman family are all musicians and composers, so this disambiguation would work -- and reduce confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jack of Oz (who is the creator). I realize we could also do away with the parentheses and call it Category:Newman musical family. Do people prefer that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I prefer your first idea. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:59, 10 April 2017 (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:Worcester Ruby Legs managers

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Worcester Ruby Legs ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 27 March 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Patriotic War

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. Hut 8.5 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, failing WP:CATDEF. More than a million were awarded during WWII, and another 9 million after. Proposing that both the main and the two subcategories be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The awards made to all surviving veterans in 1985 are obviously non-defining. However, the awards made during the war itself were for merit and should be categorised just as we categorise any other award made for gallantry or achievement (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal, which has also been awarded to countless individuals for relatively low-level deeds - nearly 400,000 for WWII alone and more than 66,000 even for Operation Enduring Freedom - and is probably more or less equivalent). The categories need to be renamed to reflect this, but not deleted. If we delete these cats, we have to question why a Russian award is being deleted but a very similar American award is not (and I can guarantee would never be). That would seem to me to be pure systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: I shall be very interested to see how that turns out once (and if) the American veterans spot it. I'm supporting its deletion, since it's more or less equivalent to (if not lower than, and certainly far, far more common than) the British Mention in Dispatches, which we don't categorise. But unlike that it is actually a medal, and if we keep one medal we should keep both. If that's deleted then I will change my vote on this category to Delete. But what we cannot do is treat one country's awards more favourably than another's. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2017 (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/2017_March_27&oldid=1199650459"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 27, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.