< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:16th-century Arab people

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. Since the target already exists, this will be implemented as a merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:15th-century Arabs, Category:17th-century Arabs, etc. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2021 (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:Participants in the Les Houches Physics Summer School 1990

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. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Participants in the Les Houches Physics Summer School 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Participants in the Les Houches Physics Summer School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Not mentioned in any of the articles included I've looked at. Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2021 (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.

Churches by name

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. For the disambiguation pages, there is already Category:Church building disambiguation pages. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:SHAREDNAME; the churches have nothing in common with one another besides their names, which are rather conventional names for churches. - choster (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See e.g. CfD 2009 January 3 Churches by patron saint for an earlier discussion. Categorization is intended to capture defining aspects of the subject, and you cannot really say that one church named for St. Mary has anything more to do with another church named for St. Mary than one named otherwise, especially in religiously pluralistic societies where churches with different conceptions of sainthood exist side by side.- choster (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can say that, it's something they all have in common. And why is the English-language Wikipedia any different to the others? Moondragon21 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any more sense to me than to categorize people with the same name, or cities with the same name. You can't even infer much of anything from the dedication, not even who founded or staffed it—I grew up attending a church and school dedicated to a 16th-century Dominican, but it was created by the archdiocese and staffed by Augustinians, and the only recognition ever made of the patron was in passing during the odd eucharistic prayer a few times a year. The name or dedication just isn't Wikipedia:CATDEFINING.- choster (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (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:Coptic emigrants to the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Coptic emigrants

Category:Indoor ice hockey venues in New Orleans

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (2 articles). I suggest deleting because both the category and the articles are already in the appropriate subcategories. User:Namiba 16:17, 29 June 2021 (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:Venezuelan 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. There currently isn't a nationalist party in Venezuela, meaning that articles in this category are prone of original research. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Venezuelan nationalism" is really broad and could be dated back up to the dictatorships of Juan Vicente Gómez and Marcos Pérez Jiménez, from where the issue arises that the term should not be confused with "militarism". More specifically, it could also refer to strive for territorial integrity, which can range from irredentism, which currently and historically is a fringe movement in the country, or more commonly the defense of current territorial claims, which I doubt that by itself can be considered as "nationalism". The term is a lot more vague than what can be found in Europe, including but not limited to Italian unification and Pan-Germanism.
In short, the definition of Venezuelan nationalism has not been developed by scholars, and its use can only bring speculation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the category currently contains merely two subjects, whose articles don't explain why they are nationalist. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2021 (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:Marine meteorology and sailing

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: ill-formed title; plus, sailing is a marine activity, so Sailing weather prediction is a type of Marine meteorology. fgnievinski (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2021 (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:Salimata et Taséré FC players

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, which will be implemented by renaming and redirecting the old page. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Salitas is the more common name and other name of the club, merging the two would make it easy to add the category to articles if either of the names are typied Ampimd (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:34, 29 June 2021 (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:Sinhalese

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: disambiguate. While most votes were for deletion, there was no explicit opposition against disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2021 (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 who memorized the Bible

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While certainly impressive, this will not be defining for most individuals. It is not mentioned at all in either of the two articles categorized in it, so this might be original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2021 (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:Political prisoners

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: convert to container category by organisation designating people as political prisoners/prisoners of conscience. Although a majority of participants would prefer to keep the category and discuss inclusion on a case-by-case basis, on this occasion the arguments based on Wikipedia policies outweigh the numbers.
I found that the justifications offered for this category did not satisfy WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: an inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Instead, recording people in Wikipedia as political prisoners should only be done in articles, lists, and categories by designating organisation.
The nominated sub-cats will be merged, plus the newly created sub-cat Category:Dutch political prisoners to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the Netherlands. I will list the current members at Talk:Political prisoner. If this category repeatedly becomes re-populated, it may become necessary to consider renaming along the lines of the precedent Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Political prisoners and its variants and by-nationality subcategories have been deleted at CfD several times: see here, here, here, here, here. The rationale for deletion is always that this is basically a POV categorization and that to be NPOV, WP should not categorize in this way. An alternative to deletion might be to say Category:Political prisoners should be a container category for NPOV categories such as Category:Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre and Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience. On the other hand, these can just as easily go in Category:Political imprisonment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to the 1st link as the "big one" but that nomination had the fewest comments of the 5 prior discussions. I guess it was big in the sense that it was the most broad though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would note similar arguments were made for Category:Terrorists, the classification as such being the primary source of notability for most of its former contents. There were more neutral (if not necessarily less controversial, e.g. "'participants' in the September 11 attacks") ways to capture this information without resorting to the POV term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choster (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I think we should try to follow Good Ol’factory and put modern entries into organisation specific categories. This will leave some historic cases like Gandhi and Mandela and a small number of others. There might be a case for a Category:Historic political prisoners to make it clear current cases should not be placed here.
  • There is a need for the top level Category:Political prisoners as a navigation device to hold the Political prisoner article and appropriate sub-categories. There might be a case for some sort of notice on the main category page discouraging use.--Salix alba (talk): 06:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all non-banned past participants, regardless of !vote: @Piotrus, Geogre, Carcharoth, Scott MacDonald, Mike Selinker, Cgingold, Mcarling, Afil, Benkenobi18, BrownHairedGirl, Homunculus, DGG, Johnpacklambert, My very best wishes, Rigley, Oculi, Otto4711, Good Olfactory, Alansohn, Bdelisle, Hmains, Mackensen, Czalex, Eupator, Petr Kopač, Serouj, Narking, Sam, Choalbaton, Dugwiki, and RobertG:RevelationDirect (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The terrorism category titles are very precise to avoid WP:NPOV: Category:People charged with terrorism, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges, Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, etc. Your comparison isn't really a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though since the equivalent category, Category:Terrorists, does not exist. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. We also have Category:Holocaust deniers as parent to Category:People convicted of Holocaust denial offenses. And Category:Rapists in addition to Category:People convicted of rape . So OTHERSTUFF in this vein very much exists. And neither of those appears to be a container category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Category:Terrorism can be disputed on same grounds, i.e. there are multiple and conflicting terrorism definitions. Nothing in humanities can be precisely defined. Deleting all such categories would be a disaster for navigation.My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biruitorul: How exactly do you propose to make this work? Take foe example Category:Chinese political prisoners. What do you propose should be the inclusion criteria for that category? And how do you propose to satisfy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We analyze what reliable sources have to say about each subject. We discuss, weigh, consider, then come to a consensus regarding inclusion of the category. We cite the sources used to reach the conclusion. In other words, the normal editing process should guide us, and there’s no real reason why it would fail in this case. — Biruitorul Talk 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biruitorul: this attribute is a POV issue, so the normal editing approach requires the application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. However Category:Chinese political prisoners does not attribute POV, so by normal editing principles, the category cannot be applied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a specific example of an impartial source asserting any of these prisoners is not political? — Biruitorul Talk 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is inherently a POV topic, "impartial" sources do not and can not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excellent, succinct summary, @Marcocapelle. Any source which labels someone as a "political prisoner" does so using some definition ... and since all the definitions are hotly contested, the label depends on the POV of whoever chose which definition to apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be used for any controversial category, and we have a ton of others. Nobody is seriously disputing most of those labels. That a few have been used in extreme examples and are contested doesn't make vast majority of those which are either uncontested or universally recognized wrong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, most cases are disputed. The govt imprisoning them usually brands them as criminals and/or terrorists.
    However, I agree that this could be said for any controversial category. That's why we have a long-standing guideline at WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and why similar controversial categories have been deleted, such as Category:Homophobes (CFD) and Category:Terrorists (CFD). Note in particular the closing statement by @Nick at the "Terorists" CFD: the absence of a neutral, unbiased, water-tight, non negotiable definition of who or what a terrorist actually is - that raises the spectre of legal action, edit wars, and perhaps as importantly, it makes the encyclopedia inherently biased in favour or against those who see a specific individual as a terrorist, but where they are, or are not categorised as one. Exactly the same issue apply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But others were kept, as the examples I noted above show. Some categories may be too politicized, particularly in the US, to work on English Wikipedia. This one is not. You fail to provide any proof for your claim that "most are disputed" by anyone except the relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys. In either case, I have no objection to removing this category from articles where there is a clear controversy, or where the claim of being a pp is fringe (Cosby, for example). But my research shows this is not a controversial description in most cases (I've added references to this claim, which is often defining, to dozens of articles, and I am improving the main article on political prisoner concept with academic references, which are plenty, and which indicate this term is significant and not particularly disputed in academia outside technical details - what research and editing in this area have you carried out?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • your comments such as relevant totalitarian/authoritarian gov't and its lackeys are clear expression of the partisan POV which you are trying to push here, based on labelling some govts as "totalitarian", so that their views can be dismissed. Since most sources do not label apartheid South Africa as totalitarian, your definition would exclude Mandela. But basically, your stance seems to be to create a category of bad govts which hold political prisoners, conveniently excluding the western nations where most editors live. That structural bias on stilts.
    As to a source pointing out the fuzziness of the definition, there is an excellent one in the head article at https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/6/3/ogaa052/6047347. Your claim that the term is not much disputed is bogus, as that paper points out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, if anyone has POV problems here it is you, as you seem to be arguing that UNDUE/FRINGE claims (rebuttals from unreliable regimes / propaganda outlets) should be given equal weight. As for the cited article, which I have found and added to the article on political prisoner, it simply reinforces my point that in social sciences, most popular terms have multiple definitions and that there are entire works trying to analyze the state of existing ones, synthesizing them and proposing various solutions. Unless you intended to have most of categories in social sciences deleted, from globalization to inequality to others, singing out this category for criticism is pure IDOTLIKEITism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the proposal, I have something else to add. There is also a problem with creating categories that are called "...prisoners and detainees". Many people interned in concentration camps or internal exile to remote locations were not prisoners and governments specifically said their forced relocation was not a punishment for any crime (As with the Dutch government and Boven-Digoel). Sure, we can say they were all imprisoned in some sense, but it collapses the differences and may imply that they were criminals when they were not, to be lumped in with others for no reason aside from that it seems simpler to us.Dan Carkner (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thank you for clarifying that.Dan Carkner (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the article space, we can absolutely write nuanced "so and so described someone as a political prisoner based on their expertise" with a reliable citation just as you've described above. Categories are binary though so Wikipedia editors would need to make a subjective include/exclude call for each article. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect Well, right now my view is that anyone can be bold and remove any controversial category, particularly if it is uncited (per WP:V). I do agree that in come controversial cases, binary system is not ideal, but then such cases can be discussed on talk page of the relevant article. In fact, I just remembered another case, arguably even more controversial, that has bearing on this - Category:War crimes (or was it Category:Crimes against humanity?) I forgot which one was it, but I made the same argument - first, this category can be removed from articles it is not backed up by a reference, and also, it should not be used in articles where sources for it are problematic (undue, fringe, etc.). Again, this should be decided on the case by case basis, and it should not prevent us from adding such categories to numerous articles that are applicable for and not disputed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very easy example of controversialness is the people who were detained in Guantanamo Bay. A problem with political prisoners is that many people tend to think that political prisoners only occur in other countries than their own. Which is reflected in sources too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a controversy but I am not aware that the majority of Guantanamo Bay prisoners are widely recognized as political prisoners. They may well be recognized as other things (for example, forced disappearance subjects or extrajudicial punishment ones), but in my lit review, I did not see that they were generally recognized as political prisoners. It seems like calling them this is FRINGE and as such it would not pass muster once questioned. As I said earlier, this category would do well with a warning that entries that are either unreferenced or where attribution of this concept is FRINGE will not be allowed. Problem solved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 1 August 2021 (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:Notable taxidermy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Category:Notable taxidermy

Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries

Category