Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6

[edit]

Category:British horror film stubs

[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. The corresponding stub template was deleted at TfD 2017-Sep-06. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category; template does not meet the threshold for creation of a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 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:British short film stubs

[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. The corresponding stub template was deleted at TfD 2017-Sep-06. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category; template does not meet the threshold for creation of a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 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:Gilgit-Baltistan lake article stubs

[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: redirect template and delete category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub sorting still rarely splits by types of geography. And in this case it's not needed. Merge category back to Category:Gilgit-Baltistan geography stubs. Redirect template back to {{GilgitBaltistan-geo-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 19:22, 6 September 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:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War

[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 based on narrow scope, not the unclear/unsupported assertions of "POV". A friendly reminder: comment on content, not contributors; and please do not empty a category before nominating it for discussion (or during the discussion). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category reads "Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War", despite Sino-Indian War ended up as "Status quo ante bellum" not only officially but also according to every WP:RS. In short words when there were no territorial changes why we need this category? Category makes no sense. Capitals00 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of this describes why category should be kept. I understand that you are the creator of this category,[1] and only person who edit warred for promoting this category,[2][3][4] even on those articles that have to do nothing with the category. You have failed to provide even one WP:RS that would justify the existence of this category. Capitals00 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Capitals00 has also now deleted the description of the category. As for the members of the category, there have already been long discussions on the respective talk pages as to whether they can be members of the category or not, and only then they have been retained as members of the category. The Discoverer (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussion[5] though, nor any discussions on the "respective talk pages" where you have unnecessarily inserted this category.[6][7] Capitals00 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: Best choice was to remove category from couple of articles for lacking any purpose, and no one but only its creator (The Discoverer) has edit warred over it. After I removed it from articles like other editors who removed it before, I would find The Discoverer edit warring over the category, that's why I created this nomination. Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles removed are Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Sirijap, Lanak La and Dehra Compass. In addition, Capitals00 has also removed the description of the category and some text from articles: [8] and [9].
I propose that we freeze the pages and the category to their versions that existed before this editing dispute began until the end of this discussion, which will enable a discussion based on the existing contents of the pages. The Discoverer (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and you had added this category even though none of these regions came under the control of China as outcome of the war, because outcome was no territorial changes that's why this category makes no sense. Capitals00 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On 21 November Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire to be followed by the withdrawal of Chinese troops to the north of the McMahon Line. But China would retain control up to its 1960 claimline in Ladakh--a situation that persists till today.[1]

  • Hoffman:

Furthermore, the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to establish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962.[2]

  • Taylor Fravel:

It is difficult to determine with much precision the amount of disputed territory that China has occupied on the battlefield. China occupied several thousand square kilometers of land in the western sector of its dispute with India in the late 1950s. After the war in 1962, China may have gained control over an additional 1,000 square kilometers of territory.[3]

"China still illegally possessed about 14,500 square miles in Ladakh including the fruits of their latest aggression in this sector.Though India did not agree to the unilateral terms of the aggressor, it decided not to alter the ceasefire. India again repeated its demand for the restoration of the status quo as on September 8, 1962 as a pre-condition for a mutually-agreed ceasefire. A stalemate ensued as the Chinese rejected the Indian proposal"

The above sources make it clear that there was some territorial change. The sources which say 'status quo' are only speaking with regard to the Chinese claim line. The text of the articles that were in this category show that these places were not completely under Chinese control in the years before the war, but are today. Since there were places that China did not control completely in the years before the war, but controlled after the war, it makes sense to have a category for these. The Discoverer (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They really don't support any of your assertion. You don't have to copy paste the senseless discussion that has been already refuted and rejected on article talk page. You are misrepresenting sources if anything and China had also claimed that India has taken 50,000 square miles of area. But you are intentionally ignoring it because you are pushing POV and was topic banned from this topic before. Capitals00 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 284, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
  2. ^ Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, p. 225, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
  3. ^ Fravel, M. Taylor (2008), Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes, Princeton University Press, p. 67, ISBN 1-4008-2887-2
  4. ^ Okoth, Pontian Godfrey (2015). USA, India, Africa During and After the Cold War. University of Nairobi Press. p. 98.
@Marcocapelle: That's another subject but I can tell that it will lead to creation of more unnecessary categories like Category:Disputed areas claimed by China and Japan and Senkaku Islands will be there. We have Category:Territorial disputes of China and Category:Territorial disputes of India, which are enough. As per categorization, when the main subject is already covered in the category, it doesn't require its smaller subjects to be covered in the category. That means none of these regions (disputed only by The Discoverer) would require such category, because main subject Aksai Chin already got Category:Territorial disputes of China and Category:Territorial disputes of India. Capitals00 (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was not aware of the Territorial disputes tree and I agree that this tree covers these issues entirely. So then the nominated category can be deleted indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 12 September 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:Boarding school films

[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. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't strike me as likely to be a particularly significant subset of Category:Films set in schools or Category:Boarding school fiction. Upmerge to those categories. DonIago (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the category and am not seeing anything that leads me to believe that any expansion is significant enough that the category shouldn't still be upmerged. Is the fact that the films are set in boarding schools rather than any other kind of schools particularly significant, especially when we have the second category to denote that? DonIago (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion regarding the deletion of this category, I just found it odd that this category was omitted from it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are these films a series or franchise, or completely unrelated? If related, the category should be renamed to reflect this. If not it should also be upmerged. Hoverfish Talk 10:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Donlago, the fact that the films are set in boarding schools rather than any other kind of schools is of course very significant. The films set in boarding school have a specific dynamic, that usually evolves around complicated relatioships students-teachers, whch makes them totally different from random school movie. Have you even watched any of those films? Linhart (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have any reliable sources discussed this, or are you just expressing your own opinion? DonIago (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's not my opinion, it's an academic fact. Look this and similar stuff: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fq.2010.63.4.12 Linhart (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you provide one source, it doesn't so much come off as "of course very significant" as "something one person felt like writing about" to me. I would also note that the author doesn't appear to be a noted film critic. I would also note that the subject doesn't appear to be notable enough that anyone's ever taken the time to write an underlying article. DonIago (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you provided none reliable sources for your statement that films set in boarding schools are just the same as films set in any other kind of schools. Because no film critic would ever write something like that.Linhart (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is that what I said. And I was, I thought obviously, expressing an opinion. One which several other editors in this discussion appear to share. Even if there are specific dynamics associated with boarding school films, that doesn't automatically mean that they merit a standalone category. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 28 September 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:Android (robot)

[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. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the CfD of Category:Androids, I believe this page would be better off at that category's name to avoid confusion, while that category be moved to Category:Individual androids. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:59, 6 September 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:Androids

[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. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This page currently is about individual androids, rather than androids in general. Therefore, in order to reduce confusion, it should be renamed to this title, while Category:Android (robot) is renamed Category:Androids. It only goes to reason the parent category should be the simpler, less disambiguated one. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andoids are notable androids. They are NOT individual, as there could be hundreds produced of that model - maybe just correctly re-categorise the individual androids that have been left in the top level category (from "Android (robot)" -> "Androids"), and then go find something useful to do on Wiki? Chaosdruid (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated my case, which it seems you do not understand. A "model" is one type of something amongst other types of somethings. The Ferrari range include the models "La Ferrari , as well as "488".
These models can also have styles (or types), such as the 488; "GTB" and "Spyder"
Android is a concept covering anything to do with Androids - apart from the OS.
If Android = Human
Individual people - individual androids.
EveR is a range of androids created over many years, with the current model being "EveR-4"
As for AGF, I really do know what it is, not being a noob here. Over complicating two major categories because of perceived semantic disparity is, assuming good faith, a great deal of energy and commitment that could be directed more productively in other areas. If you are offended by my opinion, I cannot help that. I have taken part in many drives and helped new projects get started, there are backlogs all over Wiki that need help, yet here we are discussing whether these stable categories that have been fine for some time, suddenly need changing. IMHO. (and no, that's not me being "bitey" either) Chaosdruid (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you just disproved your own argument. Category:Humans is the one that currently exists, not Category:Human. "Humans" is the base category for literally everything about humans, including the very article human. I would hesitate to say there are enough androids to call them "model lines" versus just "upgraded versions of previous androids" - a model implies it is produced in significant numbers.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:24, 8 September 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:Volleyball by city

[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 Category:Volleyball by city, Category:Volleyball in the United States by city and Category:Volleyball venues in the United States by city; procedural close for Category:Volleyball in New Orleans as it has not been tagged; and no consensus on Category:Volleyball venues in New Orleans. Perhaps user:Marcocapelle's suggestion might be made as a fresh nomination, along with the state categories in Category:Volleyball venues in the United States by state and Category:Volleyball venues in Puerto Rico; however, most of the Puerto Rico venue articles do prominently mention volleyball. There is also Category:College volleyball venues in the United States which is part of a bigger hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subcatgories: Category:Volleyball in the United States by city, Category:Volleyball venues in the United States by city , Category:Volleyball venues in New Orleans , Category:Volleyball in New Orleans
Nominator's rationale: Our coverage of volleyball is not so extensive as to need this granularity. Delete cities categories and upmerge as necessary and appropriate (to [x] in Louisiana). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually it is that extensive, but no one has taken the time to invest in categorizing it appropriately until now. It doesn't make sense to blow up four categories when more information is available and can easily be included. Please keep. Spatms (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for Now No conceptual problem with this structure but the lack of contents doesn't justify this level yet. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC) (I misread the nomination to only be about Category:Volleyball in New Orleans.)[reply]

For instance, Smoothie King Center lists dozens of events there and volleyball doesn't seem at all prominent. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 13 September 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:Catholic politicians

[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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT that violates WP:CATEGRS. We do not create or maintain categories for every possible intersection of religion with occupation -- Catholicism is simply a denomination of Christianity, not a thing that has a WP:DEFINING impact on a person's political career in any manner different or distinct from any other Christian denomination. And regarding the potential that Catholics have a tendency to sometimes be more centrist to centre-left than other Christian denominations, well, just look who the one entry actually is if you think that's the point here. This is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of categorizing politicians. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This used to be important in the USA. It has become less so, if not totally unimportant, as it became clear that Catholic politicians were not going to vote as their bishops directed them to on various key issues (e.g. abortion). In the present it doesn't seem very important, or for that matter particularly well-known, that Bush Sr. is Episcopalian while his sons are respectively Methodist (George) and Catholic (Jeb). For Al Smith and JFK it was a significant issue. That said, I don't see this surviving in its present form. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JEB's (it is an acronym from his name John Ellis Bush, Sr, so it makes no sense to call him Jeb Bush), position is very much influenced by his Catholicism. The same is also very true of Rick Santorum, despite some false notions he is an Evangelical Protestant. Still it may be hard to argue for a coherent limit to the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not disputing that Jeb or Rick Santorum's politics are influenced by their status as religious conservatives — but is there any evidence that being specifically Catholic influences their politics in a manner that's distinct from if they were members of any other Christian denomination that has a socially conservative ideology? Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly for JEB. His postions on immigration, and maybe on the death penalty are a direct outgrowth of his Catholicism. He has stuck up for Haitin immigrants when no one was doing so. Although his views on immigration are colored by having a Mexican-born wife. In the case of Santorum, the level, focus and intensity of his pro-life position would not exist if he were not Catholic. John Engler is another example that comes to mind. True his being opposed to the death penalty fits with his pro-life position, although there are consistent ways to argue against killing the innocent unborn while arguing it is at times just to kill those who have committed heinous crimes. It was also not suprrising that Geoffrey Fieger supported the death penalty, he was after all the ultimate anti-life politician, and anyway, it would be a boondoggle for defense lawyers like him. The death penalty is a make work project for defense lawyers, not that ambulance chasers like Fieger lack work, but they also have no lack of greed. Not that the debate over the death penalty was live in Michigan, we have not had one since 1846 (except for treason against Michigan, a crime no one has ever been tried for). In fact the state of Michigan has never executed anyone. The only other states that have executed no one are Alaska and Hawaii. So yes, Engler, Santorum and JEB have taken political positions that are uniquely influenced by their Catholicism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:05, 6 September 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:Cultural regions of Mexico

[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 to Category:Regions of Mexico. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_3#Category:Regions_of_Mexico —swpbT 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Objection to Rename, as proposed below. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the deleted Category:Regions of Mexico – The problem with this AfD is that obvious regions like Northern Mexico will after deletion of Category:Cultural regions of Mexico (to which I have no other objection) immediately fall under the geography of Mexico without a regions category. A geography is not necessarily a region but can also be a spatial distribution, dynamic, sub-domain, etc. It often is something else than a region. Hence if this AfD is successful we are erasing a necessary link. Other countries have a region category that would contain the non-administrative regions of a country plus the administrative regions as a category under it. This organization allows for a value free judgement, independent of the question whether such regions are cultural, physical, economic, or a combination of labels. Such nuanced distinctions are more appropriate for the articles on the regions. Administrative is objective. A region has been designated as such or not. The only question that remains for plain regions is whether, for example, a valley is large enough to be considered a region. That is a value judgement yet the community can agree on a precise mathematical value for resolution. gidonb (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the earlier CFD of Category:Regions of Mexico is located here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 3#Category:Regions of Mexico. I'm neutral on Gidonb's rename alternative. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:16, 6 September 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_6&oldid=1141927663"