Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 2 May 2019 (→Category:Esperanto speakers of Jewish descent: Keep. Esperanto is intensely linked with Jewish people). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Danish airline chief executives

Nominator's rationale: Merge into parent categories (except Category:Airlines of Denmark), per WP:SMALLCAT. feminist (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong Government biography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Consensus at WPSS is to re-scope the stub type to include people from all branches of the government of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Government (caps) refers only to the executive branch. Her Pegship (speak) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong Government stubs

Nominator's rationale: Consensus at WPSS is to re-scope the stub type to include all branches of the government of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Government (caps) refers only to the executive branch. Her Pegship (speak) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:File deletion templates

Nominator's rationale: To follow the same format as Category:Categories for discussion templates, Category:Templates for discussion templates, and Category:Redirects for discussion templates. DannyS712 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist - no discussion at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boat racing people by Canadian province or territory

Nominator's rationale: Only used as a holder for one category, that category being listed below. See explanation there for proposal. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boat racing people from Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Currently only contains a handful of articles, which are a peculiar mishmash of sport sailors and canoeists. No other country, territory, state, province, city, or town has a "Boat racing people" category. The current oddity should be deleted, with no prejudice against creating Category:Canoeists from Ontario and Category:Sailors (sport) from Ontario and the equivalent "by province" categories, which would very likely be populable. See also above nomination. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music festivals

Nominator's rationale: merge, until 1921 the tree of Category:Music festivals by year is just a duplicate of its subcategory Category:Music festivals by year of establishment. The 'oldest' article in the tree about a music festival of a particular year is Salzburg Festival: history and repertoire, 1922–1926. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or "destroy"? Given the number of categories, this would benefit from further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish-speaking Finns

Nominator's rationale: containerize (keep the subcategories and the List article in the category): Swedish-speaking is not a defining characteristic of people with an article directly in this category. A large amount of the articles do not even mention the fact. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:XYZ (English band) members

Nominator's rationale: This band, XYZ, never recorded or played live. It's an interesting footnote in the history of Yes and Led Zeppelin, but I can't see how membership of it is ever a defining category. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's similar to categorising footballers by each team they played for. (The 4 people are clearly defining for XYZ (English band) but that is the wrong way round.) Thanks for the nom - hadn't heard of this venture. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator. I'm not sure there's a notability test for categorizable bands, or what we would use to create it. At the moment, I think it's "Does the band have an article that lists at least three members with articles?" As far as I know, we've removed only one other category like this before, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 2#Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, and that was because Presley, Cash, Perkins, and Lewis didn't actually call themselves by that name. In this case, the participants called themselves XYZ when they recorded their songs together (see [1]), so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯? Anyway, willing to go whichever way as long as we have a clear rationale that can be applied to the creation of other categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded some demos together. We don't know what name would have been used if they had actually gone public and released something or played live. Categories do not exist to be an exhaustive ontology: we only use them for defining characteristics, and being an XYZ member is never going to be a defining characteristic. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do know that, though. Jimmy Page said, "Chris (Squire) had this wonderful name for it: XYZ, because it was ex-Yes and ex-Zeppelin."[2] If Jimmy Page says that's what the band's name was, I feel that's good enough for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name is not the issue. That the band had no substantive existence is. It was an aborted project: how is it ever going to be a defining characteristic? Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in the absence of definable notability tests other than "having an article which lists its members, enough of which have articles of their own," I see no reason that this is any different than any other band. They formed a unit, they gave themselves a name, they recorded music, it's been released and is available on the internet. All seems fine to me. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They recorded some demos. The demos leaked without permission: they have never been officially released. (This is all described in the article.)
We have a test and that's WP:DEFCAT. None of the four people in this category are "commonly and consistently define[d]" by reliable sources with respect to their membership of this aborted project. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of Category:Musicians by band is "Musicians by their bands, whether previous or current members." It is a defining element of these musicians that they are in bands, and the goal of the category scheme is to categorize those. I get that you think the band itself is not notable enough. That's an issue for the article, and you should feel free to nominate it for deletion. While the article exists, these are the members of the band that the article describes, so the category scheme covers it. I can see we're not going to agree on this, and that's okay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you are stretching the definition of a "band" to include an aborted project. It is different to "any other band" because they never played live, and they never released anything. I'm perfectly happy with the article existing, as it is a notable aborted project, but this makes a mockery of the purpose of categorisation, as clearly laid out in WP:DEFCAT.
The goal of categories is not to provide a comprehensive ontology of every project everyone has been in. It is WP:DEFCAT. No-one ever talks about Chris Squire as "XYZ member Chris Squire", or Jimmy Page as "XYZ member Jimmy Page", ergo this category has no purpose. Bondegezou (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever talks about Sidney Crosby as a Rimouski Océanic player either, yet there he is in Category:Rimouski Océanic players, because the purpose of the hockey category system is to categorize players by their teams, whatever they are. This category system uses the same approach. Anyway, I understand your position, Bondegezou, and I'm pretty sure you understand mine. I am fine with whatever happens. Let's see what others say.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For that analogy to work, Rimouski Océanic would have to be an idea for a team who never actually played a match. XYZ was a short-lived attempt towards a band, that folded before any public activity.
If no-one ever talks about Sidney Crosby as a Rimouski Océanic player, then that category should be removed from his article, as per WP:DEFCAT. That, however, does not mean that Category:Rimouski Océanic players should be deleted as long as it is a defining characteristic for some other players. I'm saying being an XYZ member is never a defining characteristic for these four musicians because XYZ, as an aborted project, is only notable because of them.
WP:DEFCAT is an editing guideline. It trumps other stuff existing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we disagree on this, and I think we've covered the ground enough for a closer to decide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of philosophy images

Nominator's rationale: Single-image category related to problematic Category:History images (all images are images of history...). Category:Philosophy images is totally sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary when we also have Category:Aphex Twin songs. Aphex Twin is not a singer so it's not like he's sung on tracks written by other people. (And since he's not a singer I also think "songs" is not strictly correct in either case - there's no singing - and would prefer "tracks", but whatever.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texas A&M MSC Student Conference on National Affairs Former Speakers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC for the Alumni category and WP:PERFCAT for the Speakers subcategory
The MSC Student Conference on National Affairs is an annual military and civilian conference at Texas A&M University. The "Alumni" category mostly contains articles on prominent politicians who, in their youth, helped coordinate or volunteer for the conference as college students. The "Speakers" category articles generally doesn't mention the conference at all but I assume it's for individual presenters. Neither category seems defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esperanto speakers of Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS
I assumed this category would have people that began speaking Esperanto at least partly because of their Jewish background. However, every single article is someone who is Jewish (or from a Jewish background) who happens to speak Esperanto. Not a single one of the current article tie the two topics together. (No merge is needed because I added some categories so that all the articles are in both the Jewish and Esperanto category trees. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is created in fact because probably a lot of people of Jewish descent learned Esperanto also or even mainly because of the Jewish link to Esperanto. (The causes and motivation why someone learned Esperanto are usually not mentioned in the wikipedia. Reinhard Selten somewhere said, he learned Esperanto because he knew that his father spoke Esperanto; he did not mention in this sentence that his father was Jewish.) It is known that the first Esperanto speakers came mainly from three backgrounds, former speakers of Volapük, adepts of Lew Tolstoy and Jewish people (or of Jewish descent). Ludwik Zamenhof, who was Jewish himself, sent his first book to Jewish communities in many countries and the percentage of Jewish people between the first speakers of Esperanto is remarkable (although for obvious reasons this fact is not always spoken about). Zamenhof also at some time had the idea of creating Esperanto just to give Jews a common international language. I came to the idea of creating the category just because of this link. I speak Esperanto for more than fourty years now and some day I realised that a lot of my Esperanto friends are of Jewish descent; they do not say, hello, I am of Jewish descent, but after some while you realise it. So I think this category expresses this link. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a mention of a publication about the subject (not yet published), "The Heritage and Legacy of Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof between Judaism and Esperanto. Proceedings of the GEOP Workshop at Polin Museum Warsaw, December 2017 (In Vorbereitung, mit Federico Gobbo)". I tried to find another article about this link I know of, but didn't succeed :-( --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is the tree of Category:Esperantists_by_nationality. It seems to me that being of Jewish descent is somehow similar. Maybe the Category:Esperanto speakers of Jewish descent should be a subcategory there. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that Jewish descent plays some or even a major role in the decision to learn and practise Esperanto, also for the history of Esperanto and for the fact that Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto, was Jewish and linked the creation of the language to his own history. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of the Bible into English who were not native speakers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
The category contains this header in way of an explanation: "A surprising number of people who translated the Bible (or portions) into English grew up speaking other languages before they learned English." I'm actually not that surprised. If a work is being translated between two languages, it seems likekly that half might have grown up speaking the language of the original document and half the language of the newly translated one. (Probably less, since polyglots might have grown up speaking neither language.) I can't find any similar "not native speakers" subcategories in the Category:Translators by destination language tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_2&oldid=895150093"