- 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)
- Propose merging Category:Coptic script to Category:all parents
- Nominator's rationale: small category, only holds one article. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. In addition we may probably nominate a few other small categories in Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- About the latter, see following nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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 L ondon 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom's rationale. Onel5969 TT me 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- I am relying on the views of others that we do not need to merge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete It does seem useless to have a category for all FFD and PUF discussions. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Log and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Archive present them in a more useful way. The subcategory Category:Talk pages of deleted replaceable fair use images could just be removed from this category. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Stefan2: Agreed, so done. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- Propose renaming Category:Occupations by language to Category:People by language and occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Languages by occupation to Category:People by occupation and language
- Propose renaming Category:Albanian-language occupations to Category:Albanian-speaking people by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Arabic-language occupations to Category:Arabic-speaking people by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: Standardised and clearer naming. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, these categories contain articles about people, not articles about occupations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per nom and Marcocapelle. Daicaregos ( talk) 08:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, mostly, with a question. What practical difference would there be between
Category:People by language and occupation and
Category:People by occupation and language? The current categories do serve clearly different purposes, and I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost if given these ambiguous names. —
烏Γ (
kaw) │
10:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
-
烏Γ: The first will contain English-speaking people by occupation, the second contains categories such as Poets by language. Compare
Category:People by nationality and occupation and
Category:People by occupation and nationality (both are within
Category:People by occupation). The first thing (X) named in the parent category (by X and Y) is the first thing named in the sub-category. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: My point is that the pair of names is ambiguous and imprecise, and that those who are unfamiliar with that seemingly-unwritten convention may easily be confused. I reiterate that
I feel that the distinction between their scopes will be lost
with this system. — 烏Γ ( kaw) │ 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)- Well, this convention is widely used in Wikipedia categories that analyse things two ways. If I was starting from scratch I'd probably try something longer but more specific, e.g. "People by occupation within nationality" or "People by nationality and then by occupation", but we may as well stick to the convention. If an editor clicks down into the one he didn't want, it's only one more click to go across to the other.
-
烏Γ: These two seem to have been left behind while others have been renamed, see
Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive_7#People by language, and "x by y", and the renaming decision at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 11#Category:Occupations by nationality. I have started a central discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Category names#People by X and Y. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
09:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. The 2006 CfD discussion seemed to only attain that result because there simply wasn't a desire to examine the alternate proposals objectively, with frequent dismissals as "meh, nom says the same thing". I've watched your new discussion, but I don't think I can add much there that I haven't said here. — 烏Γ ( kaw) │ 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: My point is that the pair of names is ambiguous and imprecise, and that those who are unfamiliar with that seemingly-unwritten convention may easily be confused. I reiterate that
-
烏Γ: The first will contain English-speaking people by occupation, the second contains categories such as Poets by language. Compare
Category:People by nationality and occupation and
Category:People by occupation and nationality (both are within
Category:People by occupation). The first thing (X) named in the parent category (by X and Y) is the first thing named in the sub-category. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom's rationale. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment do they speak the language, or do they only read-and-write the language? What do we do with the ones that are literate but not verbally conversant? --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had thought of that but could not come up with a better name. WP:SUBCAT does permit parenting in such cases where there could be a few exceptions. Oh, I see someone changed that in June; [1] I will revert that and start a discussion on that too. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, user:Collect has answered that point at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Exceptions_in_WP:SUBCAT. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. There is no such thing as a "x-language occupation" and this will make it much clearer. I do believe that, in this context, "speaking" a language is generally accepted as a synonym for "being fluent" in a language. Obviously, there can be nuances of meaning, but that is true of almost every word in the English language. Deb ( talk) 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- Propose merging Category:Early Modern linguists to Category:17th-century linguists
- 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 L ondon 21:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom Inter&anthro ( talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- Propose deleting Category:Acehnese-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Balinese-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Minangkabau-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Papuan-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Sundanese-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:West Papuan-language occupations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 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 L ondon 19:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nominator. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Inter&anthro ( talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete - entirely subjective. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 19:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, subjective cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as indeed very subjective. TheAstuteObserver ( talk) 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete (or perhaps merge back). We cannot allow categories that depend on editorial POV. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. Neutrality talk 04:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- Propose Deleting Category:People associated with the Whitewater controversy
- Propose Deleting Category:People associated with the Lewinsky scandal
- 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)
- Note: Notified Funandtrvl as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support delete (as creator), too broad of categories. Funandtrvl ( talk) 18:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- delete too vague. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete "associated with" categories are almost always a bad idea, and this doesn't stand out as an exception. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 L ondon 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note I added some parent categories and, while I was doing that, another editor was purging some of the category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 08:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (but Purge Further) We have a well-established tree of
Category:Political controversies in the United States, for instance
Category:Grant administration controversies. Some of these categories have been abused by nutsos and I think that happened here as well.
In addition to the articles that were already purged, I would remove Castle Grande (it's covered in the Whitewater article) and Suicide of Vince Foster (this is fringe stuff).If deleted, this all should be upmerged. RevelationDirect ( talk) 08:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Clarification The 5 articles I think should be in this category are Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, Hillary Clinton email controversy, White House FBI files controversy, White House FBI files controversy, and Whitewater controversy and nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – distasteful intrusion of current US politics into wikipedia. Oculi ( talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep controversies are real. And we have articles names as such. Reasonable subcategory. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment In the case it is decided to be deleted, in fact it should be upmerged. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete what's "controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, hence subjective. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Staszek Lem. A controversy is not necessarily subjective, it's meant to be an objective indicator that people have different judgments about it. (If not kept, then upmerge.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- With that logic, everything becomes a controversy - as objectively people have different judgments about virtually everything, striking the word "virtually" when we enter the political world. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Constantly Shifting Articles in this Category I don't think we're all voting on the same category here since four different editors are actively adding and removing articles. @ Jwkenn01, Professor JR, Wikidemon, and 70.215.89.172: There is an active discussion of this category, please hold off on further edits until it closes. And, as long as you're here, we'd love to hear your opinions on this category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Once we've gotten it down to a small and stable number, the remaining entries can be put in the Hillary Clinton category. p b p 13:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)⊄
- Delete A controversy category for a politician in election year is not encyclopedic—it's a campaign statement to accumulate opinions from opponents. Johnuniq ( talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple articles that adequately go in this category. This clearly should not be deleted, at a minimum the contents should be upmerged to Category:Hillary Clinton. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.