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.
Nominator's rationale: per parent category, "Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures". More appropriate description, especially because things that fail to get built often don't get officially acknowledged as cancelled. 82.132.225.76 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge members into Great Wheel Corporation and delete All three members are failed projects of a company which never got off the ground, and while someone will surely argue that there are enough newspaper references to each project, the real story is the company, which, it turns out, never got anything finished, including two other projects which more reasonably were mentioned in passing in articles on the sites. We do not need an "everything that this company was involved with failed" category, which is all this is. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: There is currently no Category:Great Wheel Corporation. Do you mean rename to Category:Great Wheel Corporation, or do you mean merge to Category:Ferris wheels? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to merge the member articles themselves into the article on the company. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But that should be discussed at AFD, right? What would you suggest to do with the category for the time being? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the sibling categories. I would simply say merge all to existing parent categories (2nd vote overrides previous vote). Even a Category:Proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished Ferris wheels remains small and besides we don't have a parent category in which "proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished things" are collected. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to parent category. Suggest rename as proposed for now, then review if/as/when the Great Wheel Corp. articles get merged. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Don't you agree that even a Category:Proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished Ferris wheels remains small? Don't you agree that we don't have a parent category in which "proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished things" are collected? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, very definitely don't agree. Huge difference between an operational Ferris wheel and a Ferris wheel that doesn't exist and never has. Parent category should be Category:Ferris wheels. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite clear how the two arguments for merging to parents are countered here. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even a Category:Proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished Ferris wheels remains small and besides we don't have a parent category in which "proposed, unbuilt, and unfinished things" are collected. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - doesn't WP:CRYSTAL apply to some of these arguments? I never realised that Ferris wheels were so contentious! - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example #1 and (to some extent) #5 at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Certainly, in spirit although no doubt people might go round and round (!) debating the precise meaning of event, product etc and/or that there has been lots of press coverage. I've not looked at the articles, merely this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't understand. Can you provide an example? 82.132.228.14 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, should we even be considering a category for proposed Ferris wheels? Wait until they're operating or, at least, built. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for proposed Ferris wheels can and do pass successfully through AFC. So yes, we should have (and already do have) a category for them. 82.132.234.16 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 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:Works critical of Donald Trump
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.
Nominator's rationale: Technically, not all articles inside are about works. TrumpiLeaks is a website and Mr. Garrison is a character. This would also be consistent with other Criticism of... categories. The category has appropriate subcats for more specific content. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Grapesoda22 (✉) 19:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is arguably something to speedily change, it's so obvious. First Light (talk) 09:00, 15 July 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:Institutional murder
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.
Nominator's rationale: What does this even mean? Sitush (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as POV and inscrutable. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This place gets stranger every day. First Light (talk) 08:51, 15 July 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:Caste atrocities in India
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a relatively new category created by someone who was participating in the Dalit History Month collaboration. As so often with that thing, it generates a lot of POV, RGW sentiment and poor creations etc. I'm sure someone could argue there is a difference between an atrocity and violence but "atrocity" is a very subjective word and violence seems to cover the events that are so categorised anyway. Sitush (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is as may be but (a) we're not qualified to determine whether something falls under the purview of that act; (b) Wikipedia is international, not Indian; (c) you'd only be able to categorise those articles where successful prosecutions have occurred under the terms of the act. It is far, far simpler just to adopt common usage: violence covers it all. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into already existing and neutral category. First Light (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The distinction is too narrow to merit keeping them apart. Caste is essentially an Indian issue, so that I doubt we will get any non-Indian content; possibly except Indian expats. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 16 July 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:Bahujan
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is basically a synonym of "Dalit" (Category:Dalit). Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is correct. Another creation of the Dalit History Month collaboration. In the unlikely event that an article is in this category and not in Category:Dalit then recategorise to the latter. There will be a lot of overcats as I am only just getting to grips with this year's mess. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term Bahujan is not synonymous with the term Dalit. Bahujan means majority. In the Indian context, Bahujan or majority constitutes of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes. [1][2]
In everyday usage, it means Dalit. There have been several words coined in an attempt to get away from the perceived stigmatisation of calling someone "untouchable", of which this is one. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you get your way on that point, categorising people as Bahujan is dodgy. It is connected to caste identity (which we do not categorise) and the lists of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Other Backwards Classes are constantly changing - so someone may be Bahujan one year but not so in the next. It is just a nightmare and it would apply to the vast majority of people in India. In fact, because of the caste issue, there is an argument that we perhaps should be deleting Category:Dalit people, Category:Dalit sportsperson also, rather than introducing another overlapping category. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ Barathi, Thummapudi (2008). A History of Telugu Dalit Literature. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications. p. 30. ISBN8178356880.
^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2010). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. Delhi: Primus Books. p. 534. ISBN9789380607047.
Sitush Dalits constitute of 260 Million people which is equal to 5 South Africas and 50 Palestines. You are right in stating that caste is an issue, and hence it becomes the very reason for discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and many scholars visit Wikipedia for information. Let us not misrepresent the information. By deleting the categories Dalit people, Dalit sportsperson without proper discussion, one is only considered as misusing their role as an administrator. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform to "righting great wrongs", so if there is caste in India, let there be a discussion. And let editors come to a consent. I don't think one administrator can sit and decide what is wrong and what is not. So I believe we should engage other senior editors and administrators while taking a decision on deleting the categories related to Dalit. Hemalataeditor (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. This comes back to a point I have raised with you before, ie: that you appear to be here to right great wrongs. It is unfortunate that the Dalit History Month collaboration appears to have caused such a mess of misunderstandings but, alas, it happened last year also. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemalataeditor: Can you elaborate on why these two terms aren't synonyms? You said that "Bahujan or majority constitutes of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes." Our article on Dalit says that "Dalit" constitutes the exact same groups (see second paragraph). Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bahujan is a larger umbrella group that includes Dalits as one among several groups, but is not synonymous. As Hemalataeditor notes, it includes several different groups of folks (e.g. Adivasis), or about 85% of India's population at the time Bahujan began to be used - content about many of these groups (not just Dalits) are still underrepresented on Wikipedia, but those gaps too will be filled over time. The reliable sources provided by Hemalataeditor above support the distinction between Bahujan and Dalit, and unsourced claims about everyday usage don't trump that. I don't think threats of deleting other categories like Dalit are helpful in this discussion either - let's please focus on the topic at hand. Siko (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a threat, Siko. The Dalit people etc category will be pretty much emptied by me regardless of the outcome here. It is being used contrary to long-standing consensus to categorise people by caste. That far too many people suddenly descend on a small area of the project for a brief period each year and cause mayhem doesn't make any difference to that consensus. I hope someone is going to explain WP:Overcategorization to those people also if the Bahujan category remains because, believe me, I have tried and I have got nowhere - I've spent much of the last two days cleaning up this mess solo. It's easy for volunteers to get the "feel good" of setting up a collaboration but some poor sod has to clean up after them and there is nothing feel-good about that. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're making a promise rather than a threat, unfortunately. It'd be helpful to point to this consensus (I see your one link to this discussion). Categorizing by caste identity is highly sensitive but that doesn't mean identifying (or categorizing) by caste is forbidden. In this case, it makes especially little sense not to. Dalit people have been marginalized and invisible for centuries. The category is not a slur against them, it is an affirmation that there are notable Dalits; there is not just harm but also pride in that designation. Take for example, Dalit Activists. These are self-identifying, and therefore especially appropriate. It's not throwing dangerous labels on people who commit their life's work to improving a group that they belong to and advocate for. Prohibiting the label actually makes them more invisible and hard to discover. If you remove everyone from the category Dalit, then rather than "do less harm" you further the seeming absence of that group of people. It's like saying that "I don't see color (or race) (or caste)", when instead what is needed to reconcile historical events and changes in social standing is precisely acknowledgement of one's lower-class status. Indeed, many achievements by Dalit people are extra notable because they overcame the social obstacles of being Dalit. So, I'd oppose the removal of biographies from this category and call for a renewed discussion to evaluate this purported consensus. It doesn't seem to be consensus if you ask Dalit contributors, and maybe that's a voice that has just been sadly missing for too long in our projects. Ocaasit | c 20:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you WMF acolytes see systemic bias everywhere, don't you? It's almost McCarthyite (ooh-err, reds under the bed). And you seem to be coming out of the woodwork here. The same thing happened when the WMF meddled with promoting Indian involvement through Sue Gardner's disastrous "Indian education program" a few years ago - it caused chaos (and, IIRC, ultimately was officially rubbished).
The consensus regarding caste categorisation has been there for years and the reason most contributors to WP don't mention their caste (except for the actual "caste warriors" who have turned the subject area into such a minefield that most admins don't understand it and won't get involved) is because they're scared crapless by their own legal system - they can be prosecuted for "inciting caste hatred" etc on the flimsiest of grounds.
Most people in most countries have been marginalised and invisible for centuries, not just dalits: history, generally, is and always has been the story of "great men", for all sorts of complex reasons not necessarily based on hegemonies, patriarchies and the like. There are notable people who happen to be dalits, sure, but, while it is a very Victorian comparison, there are some similarities to be drawn in the Wikipedia categorisation sense between showing that and beginning to categorise British people as "upper class", "upper middle class", "middle class", "lower middle class", "working class" etc. We don't do it (and, before you say it, caste is fluid, not static). Nor would we categorise someone as both a Dalit and a Bahujan, which is what I think has been happening since that highly disruptive collaboration.
Dalit activists can be recognised through categories such as Category:Bahujan Samaj Party politicians, being members of the Dalit Panthers etc. And for the real rationale of bahujan, try reading this. I've been cleaning up this stuff almost since I started here, I've earned a lot of respect for doing so, and I am not going to be railroaded and shamed by a few California do-gooders who don't understand how it is on the ground.
These personal attacks are over the line, Sitush. Talk about the category, not the editors. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't going to change. The misplaced do-goodism that emanates from the WMF in relation to Indic topics is well documented and I am far from being the only person who has criticised it. It seems to be an institutional thing, not a personal thing, and that's why I don't consider these to be personal attacks. This episode, emanating from the disastrous Dalit History Month thing, is but the latest example. Minor gains have come at a major cost, including the usual disruption, massive copyvios etc. Your own edit at Ezhava, where you inserted an unsourced statement that they are Dalit (and someone added that article to the DHM list of "achievements") has the potential to start legal action and even a riot in India and is fairly typical of the lack of clue that goes on with such initiatives. I accept that people make mistakes - boy, I do myself - but the incidence of them just becomes overwhelming when the WMF embark on things like this and it is the likes of me that end up having to fix it all. You should be thanking me, not chastising. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: You can talk about the WMF all you want, but calling Ocaasi and Seeeko "WMF acolytes" and "California do-gooders" who are "almost McCarthyite", isn't helping anything. Let's actually talk about the category for a change... In your edit summary at Ezhava, you argue that OBCs are not necessarily Dalits, but in this discussion you are arguing that "Dalit" and "Bahujan" mean the same thing. Since all OBCs are Bahujan, that would mean that all OBCs are also Dalit. Thus you seem to be contradicting yourself. Surely, I'm just misunderstanding your arguments though. Could you clarify? Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OBCs are not Dalits. You're making the same mistake again. In simple terms, OBCs are an official socio-economic category under Indian law, whereas Dalit is just a term that was coined by an activist in preference to "untouchable" (as, in practice, is Bahujan). OBCs generally are part of the Brahmanic Hindu caste system, although the classification includes Christian communities etc also, whereas Dalits are considered by society to be outside it (effectively, they are a fifth varna, since many do in fact practice Hinduism in some form or another). You'll usually find Dalit groups in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes official classification in India's system of positive discrimination, precisely because they are historically outside the Hindu caste system and thus massively socio-economically disadvantaged. But don't think that all Dalits are SC/STs or vice versa because the latter is, like OBC, an official socio-economic classification under the reservation system and the former is not.
I don't mind clarifying stuff like this but I do object to clueless WMF initiatives parachuting new editors who have a righting great wrongs agenda into an area that is subject to two different en-WP sanctions regimes.
@Sitush: If I accept your argument that "OBCs are not Dalits", but that OBCs are Bahujan (as you concede above and seems to be uncontroversial), that means that "Dalit" and "Bahujan" are not synonyms. "Bahujan" seems to be a broader term than "Dalit" (by your own arguments). It seems that "Bahujan" includes all Dalit, but "Dalit" doesn't include all Bahujan. Would you say that is accurate? Kaldari (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a very limited sense, yes. You need to read the links I gave above and what other objectors to retention have said. It is a politicised term created by the leader of a Dalit party in an attempt to play caste politics and it pretty much has no usage outside of Uttar Pradesh, and scant usage there except in relation to the activities of the Bahujan Samaj Party. IIRC, the BSP have an imitator in Nepal but it is electorally insignificant (same for the the Aam Aadmi Party offshoot in Pakistan). That it is used somewhere is not a reason to keep it and, aside from the BLP and geographic issues, of which we already have an excess of problems in Indic topics, I think you'll find many OBC article subjects would object. You're trying to find a way to wikilawyer this in, I understand that, but you have already demonstrated that you are lacking in understanding of even the basics, let alone the subtleties, so I'd really rather you accepted the opinion of the subject "experts", such as Cpt.a.haddock. Trying to explain the subtleties here will take forever and demand a massive overview of Indian politics, the caste system, etc. We all have better things to do, especially when this is basically just pandering to activists. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the term Dalit can includes OBCs anyway. Officially, Dalits are SCs but in practice it is an umbrella term that can be applied to any oppressed group, which basically would mean any community favoured by the reservation system. It really isn't a particularly helpful category in itself when applied to individuals or communities - would be far better to use the official classification (subject to WP:BLP), although problems lie even there because communities move between the various classifications (over 2000 changes since they were introduced, and that's just for the OBC element). - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another news story link that goes to show that Bahujan is essentially Dalit. And another. Also note that one of the two sources mentioned in the ref box above is published by Kalpaz, who publish books that plagiarise Wikipedia content. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a caste category, per comments above on caste, and based on the linked news articles. Those reliable sources and others, which is WP's cornerstone, do not support this being a caste category in any way, shape, or form. First Light (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- This appears to be a dictionary definition sitting in category space - Perhaps transwify to dictionary. If it were a wider term, covering more than Dalits, it would need to parent Dalit and categories for scheduled castes, etc. but as I read it this is a term coined by one activist to bring them together. However I am no expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator): I might have been a little more voluble in my original nomination if I'd known that this would be so contentious. The notability of Bahujan is not being questioned here, only its viability as a category. The term Bahujan is more a political term than a social one. It is basically connected with and used by only one organisation, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and its sister concerns in Nepal and such. The term itself was popularised by Kanshi Ram, the founder of the BSP, as a way of drawing other caste groups besides the Dalits into the party/movement's political umbrella.[1] You will be hard-pressed to find mention of the term in any source without the party being collocated with it.
In terms of Bahujan being synonymous with Dalit, the BSP is synonymous with being a Dalit party.[2] Its leaders are (and are therefore) customarily described as being Dalit leaders (and not Bahujan leaders). For the vast majority of India which is not impacted by the BSP, the two terms are synonymous and any nuanced difference is lost. Bahujan is also often only used practically in the form of a compound along with Dalit, as Bahujan-Dalit or Dalit-Bahujan (https://www.google.co.in/search?q="Dalit-Bahujan") even though that becomes a tautology (as Dalit is supposed to be a hyponym of Bahujan). But the composite is used because the term itself is IMO, either confusing or the party/movement does not want to lose its primary vote base or USP.
Dalit is now a mainstream term used and understood in most corners of India. This is why it merits its own category and has an article here which is reasonably comprehensive. Compare that with Bahujan, a term which is primarily restricted to the (huge) state of Uttar Pradesh and, to a lesser extent, its immediate neighbours. On Wikipedia, it currently simply redirects to Bahujan Samaj Party. This is indicative of the political nature of the term and if you glance through the BSP's page, it becomes apparent that it's a term also restricted in terms of its geography largely to one large state and a couple of neighbours. Consequently, even using Bahujan as an umbrella term for Dalits and others becomes dicey as neither is Bahujan a commonly known/accepted term all over India nor is it applicable to all corners of the country. Therefore, categorising a South Indian Dalit actor as a Bahujan->Dalit would technically also be incorrect.
--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---I don't find any diff.erence in usage between Dalits and Bahujan.Haddock hits the nail on the head.Winged Blades Godric 05:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ocaasi:--- I am so utterly amazed at your statement---It doesn't seem to be consensus if you ask Dalit contributors, and maybe that's a voice that has just been sadly missing for too long in our projects.Do not give these BS ownership-style arguments and the typical WMF groans about the absent majority.And to draw new contributors (You were trying to address systemic bias..... Eh?) into a topic that is subject to GS and Arb-enforcements and where even the bravest and experienced of our contribs prefer to stay away from--is typical foolishness.Winged Blades Godric 05:39, 5 August 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:2B locomotives
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. – FayenaticLondon 09:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category is firstly irrelevant. The entries described here (as can be seen from their titles) were described as Category:4-4-0 locomotives, not as 2B. The two terms are synonyms from two description schemes. The 4-4-0 (Whyte notation) was the one used for them both contemporaneously, and today.
The choice of scheme used to describe any group (or individual locomotive class) should be chosen on the basis of what is most relevant to that group. There is no need to describe every class by every naming convention. Many of the conventions would inappropriate or anachronistic, many cannot reflect the subtleties needed for some particular classes, there is also a problem where some names overlap between classes, but have different meanings. It should not be a goal on WP here to describe every set of classes by every classification, or even to try and apply one classification across everything (as I suspect was the goal here).
The category is also incorrect. Their UIC description should be "2'B locomotives", not "2B locomotives". The difference is significant. There are no known examples of a UIC 2B locomotive - that would be an empty category.
If treated as an AAR description, the parent category and description of this are wrong. Although the AAR scheme could be applied to these locos as "2B", it doesn't ever appear to have been applied.
This category is broken and needs to be fixed, at the least. It is also so obscure as to count as a WP:NEOLOGISM, not a category worth fixing. The Category:4-4-0 locomotives already did everything we need. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a large number of similar categories in Category:UIC classification, potentially affected equally.
There are also some articulated locos affected. These categories may be valid in themselves, but they are Whyte, Commonwealth or AAR arrangements, not UIC, and still require correction.
Merge – Category:2B locomotives to Category:4-4-0 locomotives. If 2 terms are synonymous then the corresponding categories will be identical and should accordingly be merged under the name corresponding to the article which appears to be 4-4-0. (2B locomotive, 2'B locomotive, 2B (dab page for a variety of non-locomotives), 2'B, 4-4-0 locomotive.) Oculi (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any work needed to merge them. AFAICS, they're all correctly in 4-4-0 (or the sub-cat of 4-4-0T) already.
But should we delete this 2B category? Or should we rename it to 2'B?
Making a nest of DAB pages would be a huge pile of work, and I doubt if there are any editors available and willing to do it. My point above, that we should not try to force locomotives into every classification system, unless it has some contemporary relevance for them, is why I'm against that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge means move all articles (if necessary) from the subject into the target and then delete the subject, or make it a redirect. We don't have identical categories under different names. Yes, we should delete 2B and no, we should not create 2'B. I have made no suggestion about nested DAB pages. Oculi (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Category:1-C-1 locomotives contains three Italian electrics with side rods; it's unclear to me whether the leading and trailing axles on these were separate trucks or not. At any rate they need to treated with other electrics and not as 2-6-2 steam locos. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've recategorised that one as AAR and left them in it. They'd be 1'C1' locomotives as UIC.
I don't feel any need to split steam and diesel (and why split diesel and electric?). If one wheel arrangement is strongly attached to one or the other, then there's no overlap anyway. As gronks are regularly described using Whyte notation, then leave them in 0-6-0 with Thomas. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. Regarding the long list of categories, it's not clear whether the intention is to nominate them too. If that's the intention they should be added to the top of the section and the category pages should be tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the category pages are tagged now, it's clearer that all these categories are nominated for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about tagging them (I don't believe that's a requirement, and I'm pretty sure they're all from the same creator, but it doesn't hurt to do it). It's about the fact I've since had time to check them, and have confirmed that they're all only good for deletion, which I didn't know for sure previously.
Oppose. - A little background info first, if I may:
All Whyte notation wheel arrangement articles for steam locomotives I ever worked on mention five equivalent classification systems: UIC, French, Turkish, Swiss and Russian. I made provision for all five when I created Template:Infobox steam wheel arrangement in October 2016. See 4-6-2 for an example. (colour and bold text added for clarity - AK)
Ever since I first began creating locomotive articles in 2010, Template:Infobox locomotive made provision for three classification systems: Whyte and UIC for steam and UIC and AAR for electric, diesel-electric and other powered boxcars. No provision was made for the widely used British or Commonwealth system for electric and diesel-electric locomotives. When I expanded this infobox in January 2016, with a large amount of help from Frietjes and DePiep, I added an option for the Commonwealth system.
In June this year I noticed that Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement contained close on 200 sub-categories for mostly Whyte notation, but also for AAR and UIC classifications mixed in between and not logically sorted or separated. To create some order, I therefore created the new sub-categories Category:Whyte notation, Category:UIC classification, Category:AAR arrangement and Category:Commonwealth classification. These categories were gradually populated since then as I progressed through a revision of all 357 South African locomotive articles.
At the same time I began revisiting Whyte notation wheel arrangement articles (see e.g. 0-6-6) and recategorising them into their applicable new sub-categories:
Example 0-6-6 was already in Category:0-6-6 locomotives in this case. Since Category:0-6-6 locomotives is a sub-category of Category:Whyte notation, which is already a sub-category of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement, I removed Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement from the 0-6-6 article since I considered it unnecessary duplication within the same category tree.
For the UIC equivalent of the 0-6-6 wheel arrangement, I created a new Category:C3 locomotives as a sub-category of Category:UIC classification.
I did the same with the non-steam classification systems (UIC, AAR and Commonwealth). My plan was to unclutter Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement and to sort all the varieties of the different classification systems together by system in a more orderly, logical and understandable fashion.
The reaction to the aformentioned by Andy Dingley was in his usual style whenever I’m concerned, with no trace of WP:AGF, accusations disguised as discussion and with an insult of inflexibility tossed in for good measure right from the outset.
Now, on to Dingley’s suggested mass deletion of categories, beginning with Category:2B locomotives and with another 34 added by him since:
Dingley: This category is firstly irrelevant. The entries described here (as can be seen from their titles) were described as Category:4-4-0 locomotives, not as 2B. The two terms are synonyms from two description schemes. The 4-4-0 (Whyte notation) was the one used for them both contemporaneously, and today.
How is it irrelevant, unless you want to believe that a locomotive article on Wikipedia is only of interest to those who live in countries where the Whyte notation is predominant? A large percentage of SA locomotives were designed and built in Europe, especially Germany and also Italy where the much more eloquent and descriptive UIC system was/is used, so these equivalent systems are both well known in South Africa and, I’m sure, in other countries with historical British ties who also shopped for locomotives elsewhere than just North America or the UK. Besides, what’s being talked about here are not articles but categories. Since when are there restrictions on Wikipedia to prohibit an article from being categorised in a related and relevant category?
Dingley: The choice of scheme used to describe any group (or individual locomotive class) should be chosen on the basis of what is most relevant to that group. There is no need to describe every class by every naming convention. Many of the conventions would (sic) inappropriate or anachronistic, many cannot reflect the subtleties needed for some particular classes, there is also a problem where some names overlap between classes, but have different meanings. It should not be a goal on WP here to describe everyset (sic) of classes by every classification, or even to try and apply one classification across everything (as I suspect was the goal here).
Now Dingley seems confused since he now talks about articles while this exercise was started by him to delete categories, meant to sort related articles together in related groups in an index format.
Dingley: The category is also incorrect. Their UIC description should be "2'B locomotives", not "2B locomotives". The difference is significant. There are no known examples of a UIC 2B locomotive - that would be an empty category.
This is not true!. The very first ever known 4-4-0 tender locomotive had no bogie and would therefore be classified 2B under the UIC classification. Besides, the category description reads: “Locomotives classified 2B or 2'B under the UIC classification of locomotive axle arrangements.” Is that unclear or confusing in any way?
In naming the category, and also those other 34 since added into this argument, I opted for the generic and simpler 2B instead of the more specific 2'B for the simple reason that more specific descriptions would soon get out of hand and become unmanageable. Take the Pacific, for example: There’s no need for separate categories for all possible permutations such as 2C1, 2'C1 and 2'C1' (actually much more: 2'C1n2, 2'C1n2t, 2'C1'n2, 2'C1'nv3, 2'C1'n2t, 2'C1'h2, 2'C1'h4), almost all of which were used in South Africa, when a generic category Category:2C1 locomotives can accommodate the whole lot.
Dingley: This category is broken and needs to be fixed, at the least. It is also so obscure as to count as a WP:NEOLOGISM, not a category worth fixing. The Category:4-4-0 locomotives already did everything we need.
Nothing is broken and nothing needs to be fixed. All the categories concerned here are valid. Once again Dingley seems to be confusing articles with categories – the word “category” does not appear anywhere in all the text about neulogisms on Wikipedia and it seems to me Dingley does not actually understand the meaning of the term. In assition, by “did everything we need” is meant, I suspect, “did everything Dingley needs”. This is Wikipedia, whose aim is to disseminate knowledge to everyone, not to restrict it to some. - André Kritzinger (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your points:
"All Whyte notation wheel arrangement articles for steam locomotives I ever worked on mention five equivalent classification systems"
No, they clearly do not. They all have the potential to do so, very few actually do. This is a highly sparse combination of arrangements and description schemes. Swiss electrics are found in Ge4/6, but Japanese ones are not. Only on arrangements as broadly used as 4-6-2 do we find all five of those being used.
"Since Category:0-6-6 locomotives is a sub-category of Category:Whyte notation, which is already a sub-category of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement, I removed Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement from the 0-6-6 article "
"For the UIC equivalent of the 0-6-6 wheel arrangement, I created a new Category:C3 locomotives "
I don't know why you'd do that. I've not seen Mason bogie locos (a particularly American design) described in UIC. 0-6-6T was quite enough (and it's 0-6-6T, rather than 0-6-6).
"generic and simpler 2B"
I see zero reason to do this. Rigid locomotives are just too rare to use as the core of our grouping system. Sure, there are rigid exceptions and for early single-driver locos it even might be the majority. But we should not be placing all the world's Pacifics under 2C1 locomotives just because it's more generic. (Ask an experienced object-oriented programmer with 25+ years experience why that "fine-layered taxonomy will save us" approach has always failed).
2B locomotives is an incorrect naming for either the UIC arrangement, or the AAR arrangement, of 4-4-0. If it's meant to be UIC, it ought to be 2'B. If it's AAR, then it's 2-B (and the parent cat changed).
2B locomotives (this name, as UIC) would refer to a rigid 4-4-0. I've never heard of such, but one could easily exist. We do of course have the well-known GWR Iron Duke Class, which were rigid 4-2-2 or 2A1 in UIC, but there's no specific category for those. Would we keep 2B locomotives for one obscure example or would WP:SMALLCAT see it off?
IMHO, 2'B (and any UIC scheme) should only be applied where there is significant use of it as a descriptor. This is possible: it's a common layout, UIC is important. This is an opinion, we're here today to see if it upgrades to consensus. If there are a number of French locos of this type, then I've no objection to 2'B locomotives, but as yet no-one has created it, nor have I been spurred to. Nor is it the same thing as 2B locomotives.
4-4-0 and 2'B are synonyms, but from different schemes. I see this as sufficient reason to keep both (although see above), but Oculi does not. Again, consensus would be better than opinion.
The categories listed above are those for which I seek deletion because I can see no point to fixing them as either valid UIC or AAR groups. They were not used enough, in that scheme, to justify that.
Shall I remove the background information section above, since it seems to be confusing some? It was meant as background on how I got to the point where we are now, not an attempt to re-argue old arguments. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've added a WikiProject Trains template on the talk page of a few of these categories. Perhaps more editors involved in this WikiProject might want to participate in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a further request at WT:RR for interested editors to comment here. – FayenaticLondon 22:02, 11 August 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.