Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

Category:Family history television participants

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Family history television participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Participants in Coming Home
Propose deleting Category:Participants in Who Do You Think You Are
Propose deleting Category:Participants in Who Do You Think You Are (UK series)

Nominator's rationale: The people who participate in these programs are celebrities, politicians etc - i.e. people who are already notable for what they've done and for whom appearing on these programs is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. If we allow a "people by program they appeared on" tree to grow (e.g. "People who have been interviewed on Newsnight") then it would lead to some bio articles being in hundreds of categories. This is the sort of thing that's suitable as a list, but not as a category. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these people are not notable for or defined by having appeared in one of these series. There really needs to be a broad discussion on how reality television participants are categorized but until that happens we can prune this particular branch off that thicket. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable trait of the people involved. Unlike some forms of reality television, the people here do not gain notability from this, although I would say some of our reality television categories are unneeded as well. These people are chosen because they are already notable. This is really an award category, where the award is not even for anything very specific, so we should just delete all these categories. Lists on the related articles might work, but the categories do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (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 nationalists

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 debate is evenly balanced by weight (even I interpret the merges as deletes), and the arguments to retain the structure as is with some improvement seems not to be satisfactorily refuted. So if something needs merging/deleting here, maybe a Wikiproject discussion can help. -Splash - tk 22:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rational, all of these subcategories are completely redundent and most them contain very few pages, besides, none of the categories for nationalists have this many subcategories. Charles Essie (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories seems a reasonable way to collect this information together for each country and overall. Certainly, they are proper within their parent categories. 'Redundent' seems devoid of meaning here. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're redundent because there is no need for them, all the articles in these subcategories could easily fit into the main category, it's not like there's a big difference in ideology between Arab nationalists from Tunisia or those from Lebanon, or Arab nationalists politicians, thinkers and military personnel. Charles Essie (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete categorization by viewpoint is a bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too specific categorization. Maybe a list under the article Arab nationalism would work, but categorizing people by political views is in general a really bad idea. Such views can change a lot. On the other hand, if the view is popular enough two people will both claim to hold it while denying the other really does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm getting my point across here, I'm talking about merging all of these categories into Category:Arab nationalists, not deleting them all, this is prosed merger, not a deletion proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because the editors don't know or care what Arab Nationalism is. They work on their own agendas whenever such categories are brought here. Hmains (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the country/area-specific categories to Category:Arab nationalists unless there are categories where an explanation can be given in what way, beyond the area they live in, the Arab nationalists from that certain area or country differ from the "other" Arab nationalists. Such a difference would have to be defining to, if not the exact people within the category, at least the category itself; for example if Arab nationalists within a certain area (or the Arab nationalism movement within said area), have a significantly different view of what Arab nationalism entails.

For the other categories, I would say a case-by-case check. I can see Arab nationalism being a defining characteristic for heads of state and for politicians in the same way that any ideology, movement, etc. can be a defining characteristic for politicians (but whether being a politician or head of state is a defining characteristic for Arab nationalists, and thus whether being such is defining for their Arab nationalism, is a second matter. Perhaps it would be best as just a subcat of one of many politician-cats, rather than as sub-subcat of Arab nationalism as well?) Arab nationalist thinkers... sounds like intersection to me, so merge on that one. As to the other two categories (Arab fascists and Arab nationalist military personnel), I don't know enough about it one way or another, I'm afraid. See below AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Arab nationalism is a specific political ideology, just as socialism or liberalism. Activists pursued that ideology primarily within their own countries, and the country within which they worked was a WP:DEFINING characteristic of their careers.
European socialism has always been a predominantly internationalist ideology, but we quite rightly categorise European socialists by country. We should continue to do the same with Aran nationalists, rather than making vague assertions about redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; vote above struck. Note: technically, we categorize socialists by nationality, rather than country (else the cats would be named "Socialists of/from <country>", I think), but you make a good point here, so I've changed my vote. However, if we want to follow that structure, shouldn't Category:Arab nationalists have a container-subcategory Category:Arab nationalists by nationality that is subcategory to both Category:Arab nationalists and Category:People by political orientation and nationality? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere: Yes, it probably should have a subcategory Category:Arab nationalists by nationality. If this discussion closes without deletion, why don't you create and populate that category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Will do, if you (or someone else) are willing to look over it afterwards to check if I did it right. Creating/populating categories is an area I have little experience in, so I'd rather make sure it gets checked for stupid mistakes by someone who knows what to look for. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab nationalism is not like liberalism or socialism, those ideologies can include all the peoples of the world, Arab nationalism is without saying a uniquely Arab ideology, besides, other categories for nationalists don't have subcategories for people from different countries (there's no categories for Ukrainian Russian nationalists, or Bosnian Serb nationalists), because that would be redundent, just like all of these needless subcategories are completely redundent. Charles Essie (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is uniquely Arab. Obviously. But this is an unusual case, because most other nationalisms don't span multiple countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be because Arab nationalism is somwhere inbetween nationalism and pan-nationalism. Usually, it's either the one or the other. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you can't categorize Arab nationalists by nationality is that the whole idea of Arab nationalism is that the only nationality they recognize is Arab nationality, they don't believe Egyptian, Syrian or Yemeni nationalities exist, they believe those are false identities imposed on them by western imperialists in order to divide and conquer the Arab world. Charles Essie (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the national categorisation is important precisely because of that. These are people who want to abolish the state of which they are citizens, and it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic that they pursued that cause within one particular state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, not all of them advocate the abolition of the Arab states (some of them advocate a federation or simply, a stronger, more centralized Arab League), and the ones that do don't just advocate the abolition of the state they're citizens of, but of all of them. Charles Essie (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (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 in Voice over IP

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: result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People in Voice over IP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very vague defining characteristic for this category. "People in Voice over IP" could really include anyone. I use VOIP at work therefore if I were to be notable I could theoretically be included here. Mike (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be for people employed in the field of VoIP or by companies that provide it. Employee by product type is a poor basis for categorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry Pepsi, unless this is something to do with an implementation of RFC 1437. In which case it could be WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one person in the category as of now, and on top of that—looking at his wiki bio—, it's not even clear what he had to do with VoIP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too unclear what it means to be a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2014 (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:Orphan Indication

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) 01:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Orphan Indication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure what it is. The search yields no conclusive results, vaguely pointing to orphan drug designation and the book search yields "orphan indication" instead. The category itself is within Category:Rare diseases, with no interwikis to give a clue. The only article in it, high acuity medicine, suggests it may be indeed relevant to orphan drug, but I don't know whether renaming is warranted. Brandmeister^talk 15:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant to Category:Orphan drugs, as best I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2014 (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:Hameaux in France

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 Category:Villages in France. However, the subcategories have not been tagged, so it would cause procedural headaches if I applied this outcome also - even though it should be obvious. The nominator will need to either full-CfD or speedy-rename CfD the subcategories as the judge is needed. -Splash - tk 22:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hameaux in France to Category:Villages in France

Nominator's rationale: Since hameau is nothing more than a small village (they're not administrative subdivisions AFAIK), I think this category should be merged with "Villages in France", and its subcategories (e.g. Hameaux in Auvergne) should be renamed to the corresponding villages categories (e.g. Category:Villages in Auvergne). These categories should be reserved for villages that aren't independent communes. Markussep ^Talk 12:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Most departement have a single entry- and the article often refers to the settlement as a village. Some departement have ten or more, and Hameaux in XXXX could become a subcat of Villages in XXXX- but often the articles are more related to an exterior subject and provide a link. In Savoie it seems to be locations of ski resorts, in Nord specific events in WW2- reclassifying them by hand to- Ski-stations in XXXX, and Locations of military events in XXXX would remove the clutter, then a merger seems fine -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't create "hameaux in XXXX" as subcategory of "villages in XXXX" since IMO there's no difference between "hameau" and "village". I agree we should recategorise articles that aren't (mainly) about populated villages. Markussep ^Talk 09:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure see Hamlet (place). I thought we wouldn't have Category:Hamlets in England but in fact we have a huge tree, and many categories in other countries. In England it's an unofficial term, but not having a CofE church makes you a hamlet not a village. Are we sure about the situation in France? Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written in the hamlet article, there are some 18th century follies called hameau, but they're not in this category. French wikipedia has a category fr:Catégorie:Hameau ou lieu-dit de France and no separate category for villages that are not communes. There is a category fr:Catégorie:Ancienne commune de France with an English counterpart Category:Former communes of France. Several of the places in the Category:Hameaux in France would fit in that category as well. Probably there will remain some small places that have never been communes, we can use the Category:Villages in France for those. My main argument for this merger is: hameaux are not different from villages, so it's no use to have a separate category for them, with a name that is not readily understood by most users. Markussep ^Talk 16:46, 26 January 2014 (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:Songs about Cities

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Songs about Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The two members of this category are already in the relevant city entries Category:Songs about New York and Category:Songs about Los Angeles, California. There is a capitalization to create this category over and above the already existing Category:Songs about cities. which is a container category for songs about cities Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – bizarre. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the two subcats; suffers from the same problem as most "about" categories; how much about the city must the song be to belong and what reliable source tells us it's that much. Also, too many songs would potentially be "about" too many places just adds category clutter, for example Dancing in the Street. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The subcats were not nominated, so they have not been tagged. It would be wrong for a CFD discussion to lead to the deletion of untagged categories, because there would not have been proper notification.
  Also, while Carlossuarez46 makes a good case that categorising songs in this way is a bad idea, he makes no case for singling out these two from the 31 by-city subcats of Category:Songs about cities. A group nomination of them all would be the way to advance that case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am very sad we do not have an article on my favorite song "Detroit" from the Disney Film, The Happiest Millionaire. Also, I am afraid what would happen if any editor decided to take the category header into account in applying this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2014 (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:The Curse of Oak Island

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: result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Curse of Oak Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as premature. This TV show isn't covered beyond the very short article The Curse of Oak Island. Pichpich (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single-item category not in any way suitable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the category did not bother to populate it, nor added it to any category tree. I really see no reason for this category. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that many things could link back, but maybe I was wrong to create a cat, at least at this stage. Not sure how to proceed. Willing to go with what's best.Learner001 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Single article category with no early prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the one article currently in the category belongs there is debatable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (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.