Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

[edit]

Category:Current WWE Divas

[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) 00:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since WWE no longer uses the term anymore for their current female talent, I think it's time now to also retire the category. wL<speak·check> 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:WWE Divas. Then we should keep the category and drop the Current. Something doesn't stop being notable because it is no longer available and we don't typically categorize by current/former. The straight delete would remove most of these people from the WWE category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:WWE DIvas, I dont think a deleation is merated here, There are still women in the WWE, the fact that they dont call themselves "Divas" doesnt mean that the entire catgorgy should be deleated. My honest opionion would be to just called them "Women in the WWE", "WWE Women", or if we want we can merge the Catgories with the WWE superstars, but i think a rename will suffice. Nhajivandi (talk)
That would also work for me. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 8 April 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:Divine presence

[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. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the category only contains the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 4 April 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:Mayors of South Portland, Maine

[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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category with just 2 entries. Also entries upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in Maine. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the category now has five six eight articles, which is more than the typical standard for whether to keep or delete such categories. The number of articles in the category has expanded from 2 to 5 6 8 since the category was created.--TM 11:07, 10 April 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.

Stub category redirects

[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: speedy delete WP:G6. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all stub categories. Stub categories are filled by tagging pages with stub tags. Since the stub tags have all been moved to the new category names, its unnecessary to keep the old category names. Dawynn (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontested CFDs are often closed without a long delay. DexDor (talk) 18:46, 5 April 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:People married to Elizabeth Taylor

[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: speedily deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Literally the definition of WP:SMALLCAT, a similar cat was deleted 10 years ago I assume it's probably a speedy but going this route just because it is technically a different name. Le Deluge (talk) 11:55, 4 April 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:Civic and political organizations

[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 as originally nominated. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is one of those "and" cases. Civi and political organizations are not identical; anyway we already have Category:Political organizations so this just creates confusion. Renaming this to civic will lessen that. Some further notes: 1) List of civic and political organizations will need to be renamed. 2) Civic organization redirects to Civil society and Political organizations to Political organization. 3) See related Wikidata discussion at wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/03#Please_merge (WD has a Category:Social organizations that is not a term I'd recommend using, at it is not clear what a social organization (in this context) is - I think it's a bad translation from another language, like Polish (false friend issues, etc.)). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about an alt merge to Category:Community-based organizations, thereby narrowing scope, and shift some content to Category:Political organizations and other appropriate categories?
    Rationale: I'm very much in favor of renaming/dissolving x and y categories whereever possible, and am thankful the nominator brought this up. But "civic organizations" still seems to be a bit too vague and too wide in scope, therefore constituting WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Political organizations and other categories. Note that there is quite a number of Civic and political organizations subcategories within Category:Political organizations by country. This points to the fact that almost all civic organizations fall into the mainstream of what can or would be considered a "political organization".
    More generally, Though there's a number of definitions around, Civil society in its broader sense encompasses almost all non-governmental, not-for-profit organizations. In its narrowest sense, "civic organizations" would only include grassroots organisations that people actively volunteer for. For this kind of civil society organizations, there however is another widely and scholarly established term that also happens to be much less ambiguous in scope: "Community-based organizations". Of course we need to sort out whatever doesn't match the new, narrower definition anymore. --PanchoS (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominator's rationale. I'm not very clear what a civic organisation is. In England it's a term often applied to conservation societies in urban areas. But I know what a political organisation is. I'm not sure about "Community based". It's a label which organisations like to adorn themselves with, but such claims are hard to substantiate. There are many different sorts of communities. Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: I see your argument, but then again you're not sure about "civic organization" either. As I said, "community-based organizations" (CBOs) is a widely and scholarly established term that is usually defined much narrower than civic or civil society organizations are. If applied strictly, i.e. requiring grassroots activism and community focus being covered by WP:RS, I see less problems than with any other alternative definition, including "Civic organizations". After thinking about it for quite some time, and doing some research, at least I don't see a better proposal, but feel free to come up with yet another one. --PanchoS (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "community-based organizations" would be an improvement on what we have now. But it needs policing. I've just been through loads of organisations which were categorised as "international" in what was clearly promotional categorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder and PanchoS: As I noted in detail in a related discussion at Talk:Community_organization#Requested_move_6_April_2016, we need to consider the correct name for this. There are other contenders: with social movement organization, civil society organization this makes five (in addition to civic organization, community organization and community-based organization). Sigh. PS. After a bit more of checking I also see there is a problematic Category:Social movement organization which a) should be plural b) is very much on the topic we discuss and c) is badly categorized only under Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States by issue (where in fact it is not limited to US, and should be under Category:Social movements. Second sigh). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As often, there is not one correct name, but a plethora of terms and definitions, of which we may only pick those that are working best to categorize our articles. Thanks for pointing us to Category:Social movement organization, which indeed needs to be plural, but will continue to be problematic. Either way, it's clearly not the same as a community-based organization. So, what would be your actual proposal? --PanchoS (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: For now my preference is to choose one name for the category. As you note, it is hard to say what are the differences between used names. I am partial toward having only one article, social movement organization (disclaimer: I am the main author of it). It is well referenced, and we don't have any other article on those topics. Those others can be stubbed if and when people find sources, but until we have referenced stubs with proper definitions I would not endorse creating categories for them. Oh, and I did look more closely at the refs I found for CBO and I find it to be a poorly defined concept that while deserving a stub would, IMHO, be problematic as a category. Perhaps it is my social movements scholar background, but I do find SMO to be a much better defined term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Those that are part of both can be then categorized in both civic and political categories. The point is there are some organizations which are civic (civil society-related) but not political. "Civil society is the "aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens."" and civil society organizations listed in the article include clearly non-political groupings like "support groups" or "sport clubs". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The arrangement I would suggest for categories is:

Top level: Community organizing
Sub-categories:
Grassroots organizations (includes community organization, community or social action committees, and social movement orgs)
Community development organizations (includes civic organizations, arts organizations, etc.)
Local government organizations (already exists, self-explanatory)
Some of the other types of organization discussed could form sub-sublevels if needed Regards, Meclee (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Meclee: I am fine with Category:Community organizing being at the top level, but we are talking about the structure for Category:Organizations here, which is not the same. The proper parent category, as DA Sonnenfeld (talk · contribs) has noted, is Category:Organizations by type (uh, we also have Category:Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Organizations by activity and that probably needs a discussion of their own, but it's OT here, so let's just lump them into one conceptual category for the purpose of this discussion). With the category for organizations by type/subject/activity, we have a lot of different organizations, of course. A clear hierarchy should be our ultimate goal, of course, but this CfD is not about that, at least, not about a complete reform. For now, the question is - what to do with a single Category:Civic and political organizations, and I would like to think that given the existence of Category:Political organizations, my rename proposal (which does not include changing the category structure) is just a simple technical step. Once we have carried it out, by all means let's come back and discuss hierarchy, but Meclee, can you explain to me why are you objecting to my simple rename? Do note that the merge has is not my idea, but that of User:PanchoS, and as much as I appreciate his ideas, I'd strongly suggest we try to focus on the issue at hand: removing "and political" from this category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus I do not oppose removing "and political" from the Category:Civic and political organizations, but I am suggesting that if we intend to address the wide array of issues discussed herein, we do need a more general reform of the structure. I withdraw my "oppose" if we are limiting discussion to the appropriate label for the one existing category, Category:Civic and political organizations. Meclee (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Category:Organizations by type is fairly well developed. Lots of (types of) political organizations. The closest to civic organizations may be Non-profit organizations. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for now it does, and if we want to disagree on that, I'd suggest doing it at another discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 9 May 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:FC Wil

[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: speedy rename C2D. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: article is titled FC Wil 1900 Joeykai (talk) 05:11, 4 April 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:Morbid Angel

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful container for decent sized other categories.--TM 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eponymous categories such as these have been deleted in CFDs when the only content were in subcategories of Foo songs and Foo albums. If a third subcategory of Foo members exists, they've typically been kept. Because the content here can all be linked from the eponymous article and the two subcategories can be interlinked, this category doesn't serve much purpose. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:22, 19 April 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:Behemoth (band)

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content and the albums and members are interlinked by the footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 4 April 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_April_4&oldid=1136462542"