- 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:
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6#Category:Cultural regions of Mexico.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_3#Category:Regions_of_Mexico — swpb T 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Swpb: How do you mean referring to this previous discussion? The regions in Category:Cultural regions of Mexico are completely different from the regions discussed in that earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There are a large number of distinct areas in Mexico. Without any official designations for being distinct enough to fit into this category? RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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, including redirect. Timrollpickering 10:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hardly a noteworthy or defining element to use as a category, they probably dont serve lots of other things as well like cocaine or ham sandwiches or be to small as to not serve anything on a flight. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. And we don't add categories for attributes they don't do. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF WikiVirus C (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the category has meanwhile been moved to Category:Airlines which has banned alcoholic beverages on flights, perhaps in an attempt to address the above concerns. @ MilborneOne, Lugnuts, WilliamJE, and WikiVirusC: could you please indicate whether or not you maintain your previous vote after this rename? Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Still delete for me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Still delete for me also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Television series by century (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Also: Category:20th-century television series and Category:21st-century television series.
- Propose deleting
Category:Television series by century (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There's no need for a by century categorization scheme for television. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Koavf: Not sure whether I understand this correctly. Your nomination would merely leave the two subcategories orphaned. Didn't you mean to nominate the two subcategories?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: Of course. All three should go--the scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then please add them to the nomination and tag the subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: Of course. All three should go--the scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete If there were enough long-running shows that people felt were best categorized only by their century, this category might work, but since everything is in decade categories or lower there is no reason to keep these categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I had to rub my eyes like all above but nevertheless keep as a container category for decades only. Keep since this category is needed as an intermediate category between the tv by decade and works by century and millennium. Please insert the container category only template as a result of this discussion. Koavf, thank you for bringing this up! gidonb ( talk) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Gidonb: Please note that Category:Television series by decade already exists so it's not too clear what you are proposing exactly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: My proposal is to keep Category:Television series by century as part of the works navigation structure. The only change I propose is to add container warnings. gidonb ( talk) 04:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Gidonb: Sorry it's still not clear. Category:20th-century television series is in Category:20th-century works and Category:21st-century television series is in Category:21st-century works regardless whether Category:Television series by century exists, so this container category is not "needed", is it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Marcocapelle, it's needed as an intermediate to Category:Works by century. Television series would disappear from the list of works. Just follow my link and see left-hand side. gidonb ( talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not really needed, it would merely provide a second route, with an equal amount of mouse clicks, of navigating from Category:Works by century to Category:20th-century television series. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, obviously my issue with this AfD is not the amount of clicks but whether or not the category is offered in the navigation or not. In order to get there through that same amount of clicks you need to know what you are looking for. The AfD seeks to erase television series from the list of works at Category:Works by century. I think that's a bad idea. It makes the navigation choices at Category:Works by century incomplete! Good navigation is a major purpose of categories. gidonb ( talk) 00:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: speedy delete per BLP mixed in with a heavy dose of SNOW. Bencherlite Talk 23:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Obvious POV.
Doug Weller
talk
16:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- The second one I checked, Baked Alaska (entertainer), has no mention of the ADL. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the category is based on
this article from the ADL official website called "From Alt Right to Alt Lite: Naming the Hate" where they profile various individuals included in the category. Don't see what is supposed to be POV? The ADL is a notable organisation.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
- We don't create categories like this, and even if we did, we'd have to do it in a much more explanatory way than "targeted." Category:People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic, or something — but we don't do that, because it's inappropriate to categorize people based on negative descriptions by a third-party interest group. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - "Targeted" means what, discussed, criticized, praised? Meaningless and opens a Pandora's box of possible, yet entirely-unencyclopedic, categories - Category:People targeted by PETA, Category: People targeted by the Republican National Committee, Category:People targeted by Boy Scouts of America, Category:People targeted by General Motors, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well we have
List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups for something similar already on Wikipedia. With the possible exception of PETA (which may be a valid category if the campaign is notable), your example isn't very good because General Motors do not claim to be a political watchdog or an activist organisation, they sell cars.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a category, it's a list — they're fundamentally different things. Moreover, the reason we have that article is that the SPLC's designation of groups as hate groups is widely discussed, praised, criticized, etc. in reliable sources, and thus is notable (hence the huge number of sources in that article). If you wanted to create an article titled List of people designated by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic, that would be a separate issue; I'm not sure it would pass muster (does the ADL directly do that? I'm not sure) but it would be a fundamentally different question than a category. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well we have
List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups for something similar already on Wikipedia. With the possible exception of PETA (which may be a valid category if the campaign is notable), your example isn't very good because General Motors do not claim to be a political watchdog or an activist organisation, they sell cars.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The word "targeted" is a clear non-NPOV violation. Where's the reliable sources that state that any of these people were "targeted"? Without such sources, this category should be deleted. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- " [target (transitive) To aim something, especially a weapon, at (a target).]"
- The ADL is opposed to these individuals and thus has targeted them by aiming public criticism at them on a public platform, profiling each individual on a hate list on their campaigning website. How is the word "targeting" in any way non-NPOV or objectionable? They self-evidently didn't create the list to support them. On the
COINTELPRO article we speak of "targets" so the parlance appears to be in common use.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Targeted" doesn't explain anything, much less the reason for the criticism. To be neutral, such a category might be called "People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic" or "racist" or whatever. But we don't create categories for that, because
it's not a defining characteristic of a person. Also see
WP:BLPCAT, particularly
Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light).
Putting someone in a category that says someone thinks they're an anti-Semite certainly suggests they have a poor reputation, and we shouldn't be doing that without good reason. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Targeted" doesn't explain anything, much less the reason for the criticism. To be neutral, such a category might be called "People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic" or "racist" or whatever. But we don't create categories for that, because
it's not a defining characteristic of a person. Also see
WP:BLPCAT, particularly
- The ADL is opposed to these individuals and thus has targeted them by aiming public criticism at them on a public platform, profiling each individual on a hate list on their campaigning website. How is the word "targeting" in any way non-NPOV or objectionable? They self-evidently didn't create the list to support them. On the
COINTELPRO article we speak of "targets" so the parlance appears to be in common use.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete immediately and without reservation. This category has been created solely for the purpose of adding PoV slants (falsely implying that the ADL has the characteristic of a belligerent) to articles like the one to which it has just been added (and promptly reverted), namely Richard B. Spencer. Having this category on the encyclopedia is basically a way of condoning the adding of weasel words to articles. Edaham ( talk) 17:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete 'Targeted by' is very poor phrasing to use. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Per all of the above. Multiple problems with this, any one of which would be a dealbreaker. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 category has already been emptied. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any use for this. It's not just "leftist states", with no criteria, it's "g Leftist States, Proto-states, and movements current and throughout history." Already it has entries which aren't states. And who says France is leftist? Or Kurdistan?
Doug Weller
talk
15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Totally meaningless category; if the United States, France, China and Angola are all "leftist states," the word is being stretched so far beyond any sense of meaning as to be wholly without purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per NorthBySouthBaranof.- Mr X 17:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per above and per ill-defined concept, to say the least. Dr. K. 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete seems like a slur term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham ( talk • contribs)
- 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.
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Dnipropetrovsk to Category:Dnipro
Nominator's rationale: According to the main article ( Dnipro). The subcategories and subsubcategories also.-- Unikalinho ( talk) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously rename.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rename – the article was recently moved to Dnipro by clear consensus so the category should follow suit. Oculi ( talk) 20:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rename this category all it's subcategories affected by this change (with "Dnipropetrovsk" in title). XXN, 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Unikalinho: Please list and tag all categories that you want to include in this nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Category:Dnipropetrovsk, all the 10 subcategories, and all theirs subcategories. In my opinion, it is clear--
Unikalinho (
talk)
05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes but you do need to list and tag them, if the nomination stays poorly formatted like this a closing admin will most likely only process the top category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have opportunity to do this. I think this can be done by any participant or reader of this discussion. As well, the admin may rename the categories singly, following to the consensus.
WP:POINT,
WP:BURO--
Unikalinho (
talk)
08:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The outcome of this nomination could be used for speedy nominations of the child categories but that seems like more work. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have opportunity to do this. I think this can be done by any participant or reader of this discussion. As well, the admin may rename the categories singly, following to the consensus.
WP:POINT,
WP:BURO--
Unikalinho (
talk)
08:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes but you do need to list and tag them, if the nomination stays poorly formatted like this a closing admin will most likely only process the top category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Category:Dnipropetrovsk, all the 10 subcategories, and all theirs subcategories. In my opinion, it is clear--
Unikalinho (
talk)
05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rename with all categories associated to the city. Be careful not rename the categories of the oblast! gidonb ( talk) 03:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to blindly match the main article name. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 (
non-admin closure). I suppose there is no procedural objection if a discussion is closed by the nominator in case like this with a clear keep consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Masada to Category:Siege of Masada
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the articles in this category are about the siege, i.e. about a historic event, not about geography. If the category is renamed, geographic parent categories (e.g. museums, parks) should be moved from the category page to the article Masada. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the rename won't change much, except narrowing the scope of the category; currently also Masada National Park can belong to it and of course Yigal Yadin and Pillage of Ein Gedi. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- Merging a category to an article does not work. The only purpose in splitting the seige from the rest would be if there was a great deal of content, but I doubt there ever will be here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- The siege, previous, and subsequent events were in the same location (Masada) so from a taxonomy perspective the rename is not an improvement. The Siege of Masada can be a subcategory of Masada (and some historical events), however, like my colleagues above, I do not see the justification right now. The Masada category is working just fine. Thanks Marcocapelle, for initiating an interesting discussion on time and space dimensions. gidonb ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6#Category:Cultural regions of Mexico.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_3#Category:Regions_of_Mexico — swpb T 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Swpb: How do you mean referring to this previous discussion? The regions in Category:Cultural regions of Mexico are completely different from the regions discussed in that earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There are a large number of distinct areas in Mexico. Without any official designations for being distinct enough to fit into this category? RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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, including redirect. Timrollpickering 10:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hardly a noteworthy or defining element to use as a category, they probably dont serve lots of other things as well like cocaine or ham sandwiches or be to small as to not serve anything on a flight. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. And we don't add categories for attributes they don't do. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF WikiVirus C (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the category has meanwhile been moved to Category:Airlines which has banned alcoholic beverages on flights, perhaps in an attempt to address the above concerns. @ MilborneOne, Lugnuts, WilliamJE, and WikiVirusC: could you please indicate whether or not you maintain your previous vote after this rename? Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Still delete for me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Still delete for me also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Television series by century (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Also: Category:20th-century television series and Category:21st-century television series.
- Propose deleting
Category:Television series by century (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There's no need for a by century categorization scheme for television. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Koavf: Not sure whether I understand this correctly. Your nomination would merely leave the two subcategories orphaned. Didn't you mean to nominate the two subcategories?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: Of course. All three should go--the scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then please add them to the nomination and tag the subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: Of course. All three should go--the scheme. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete If there were enough long-running shows that people felt were best categorized only by their century, this category might work, but since everything is in decade categories or lower there is no reason to keep these categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I had to rub my eyes like all above but nevertheless keep as a container category for decades only. Keep since this category is needed as an intermediate category between the tv by decade and works by century and millennium. Please insert the container category only template as a result of this discussion. Koavf, thank you for bringing this up! gidonb ( talk) 02:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Gidonb: Please note that Category:Television series by decade already exists so it's not too clear what you are proposing exactly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: My proposal is to keep Category:Television series by century as part of the works navigation structure. The only change I propose is to add container warnings. gidonb ( talk) 04:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @ Gidonb: Sorry it's still not clear. Category:20th-century television series is in Category:20th-century works and Category:21st-century television series is in Category:21st-century works regardless whether Category:Television series by century exists, so this container category is not "needed", is it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Marcocapelle, it's needed as an intermediate to Category:Works by century. Television series would disappear from the list of works. Just follow my link and see left-hand side. gidonb ( talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's not really needed, it would merely provide a second route, with an equal amount of mouse clicks, of navigating from Category:Works by century to Category:20th-century television series. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, obviously my issue with this AfD is not the amount of clicks but whether or not the category is offered in the navigation or not. In order to get there through that same amount of clicks you need to know what you are looking for. The AfD seeks to erase television series from the list of works at Category:Works by century. I think that's a bad idea. It makes the navigation choices at Category:Works by century incomplete! Good navigation is a major purpose of categories. gidonb ( talk) 00:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: speedy delete per BLP mixed in with a heavy dose of SNOW. Bencherlite Talk 23:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Obvious POV.
Doug Weller
talk
16:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- The second one I checked, Baked Alaska (entertainer), has no mention of the ADL. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the category is based on
this article from the ADL official website called "From Alt Right to Alt Lite: Naming the Hate" where they profile various individuals included in the category. Don't see what is supposed to be POV? The ADL is a notable organisation.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
- We don't create categories like this, and even if we did, we'd have to do it in a much more explanatory way than "targeted." Category:People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic, or something — but we don't do that, because it's inappropriate to categorize people based on negative descriptions by a third-party interest group. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - "Targeted" means what, discussed, criticized, praised? Meaningless and opens a Pandora's box of possible, yet entirely-unencyclopedic, categories - Category:People targeted by PETA, Category: People targeted by the Republican National Committee, Category:People targeted by Boy Scouts of America, Category:People targeted by General Motors, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well we have
List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups for something similar already on Wikipedia. With the possible exception of PETA (which may be a valid category if the campaign is notable), your example isn't very good because General Motors do not claim to be a political watchdog or an activist organisation, they sell cars.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a category, it's a list — they're fundamentally different things. Moreover, the reason we have that article is that the SPLC's designation of groups as hate groups is widely discussed, praised, criticized, etc. in reliable sources, and thus is notable (hence the huge number of sources in that article). If you wanted to create an article titled List of people designated by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic, that would be a separate issue; I'm not sure it would pass muster (does the ADL directly do that? I'm not sure) but it would be a fundamentally different question than a category. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well we have
List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups for something similar already on Wikipedia. With the possible exception of PETA (which may be a valid category if the campaign is notable), your example isn't very good because General Motors do not claim to be a political watchdog or an activist organisation, they sell cars.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The word "targeted" is a clear non-NPOV violation. Where's the reliable sources that state that any of these people were "targeted"? Without such sources, this category should be deleted. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- " [target (transitive) To aim something, especially a weapon, at (a target).]"
- The ADL is opposed to these individuals and thus has targeted them by aiming public criticism at them on a public platform, profiling each individual on a hate list on their campaigning website. How is the word "targeting" in any way non-NPOV or objectionable? They self-evidently didn't create the list to support them. On the
COINTELPRO article we speak of "targets" so the parlance appears to be in common use.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Targeted" doesn't explain anything, much less the reason for the criticism. To be neutral, such a category might be called "People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic" or "racist" or whatever. But we don't create categories for that, because
it's not a defining characteristic of a person. Also see
WP:BLPCAT, particularly
Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light).
Putting someone in a category that says someone thinks they're an anti-Semite certainly suggests they have a poor reputation, and we shouldn't be doing that without good reason. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Targeted" doesn't explain anything, much less the reason for the criticism. To be neutral, such a category might be called "People described by the Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic" or "racist" or whatever. But we don't create categories for that, because
it's not a defining characteristic of a person. Also see
WP:BLPCAT, particularly
- The ADL is opposed to these individuals and thus has targeted them by aiming public criticism at them on a public platform, profiling each individual on a hate list on their campaigning website. How is the word "targeting" in any way non-NPOV or objectionable? They self-evidently didn't create the list to support them. On the
COINTELPRO article we speak of "targets" so the parlance appears to be in common use.
Claíomh Solais (
talk)
17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete immediately and without reservation. This category has been created solely for the purpose of adding PoV slants (falsely implying that the ADL has the characteristic of a belligerent) to articles like the one to which it has just been added (and promptly reverted), namely Richard B. Spencer. Having this category on the encyclopedia is basically a way of condoning the adding of weasel words to articles. Edaham ( talk) 17:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete 'Targeted by' is very poor phrasing to use. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Per all of the above. Multiple problems with this, any one of which would be a dealbreaker. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 category has already been emptied. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any use for this. It's not just "leftist states", with no criteria, it's "g Leftist States, Proto-states, and movements current and throughout history." Already it has entries which aren't states. And who says France is leftist? Or Kurdistan?
Doug Weller
talk
15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Totally meaningless category; if the United States, France, China and Angola are all "leftist states," the word is being stretched so far beyond any sense of meaning as to be wholly without purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per NorthBySouthBaranof.- Mr X 17:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per above and per ill-defined concept, to say the least. Dr. K. 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete seems like a slur term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham ( talk • contribs)
- 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.
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Dnipropetrovsk to Category:Dnipro
Nominator's rationale: According to the main article ( Dnipro). The subcategories and subsubcategories also.-- Unikalinho ( talk) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously rename.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rename – the article was recently moved to Dnipro by clear consensus so the category should follow suit. Oculi ( talk) 20:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rename this category all it's subcategories affected by this change (with "Dnipropetrovsk" in title). XXN, 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @
Unikalinho: Please list and tag all categories that you want to include in this nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Category:Dnipropetrovsk, all the 10 subcategories, and all theirs subcategories. In my opinion, it is clear--
Unikalinho (
talk)
05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes but you do need to list and tag them, if the nomination stays poorly formatted like this a closing admin will most likely only process the top category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have opportunity to do this. I think this can be done by any participant or reader of this discussion. As well, the admin may rename the categories singly, following to the consensus.
WP:POINT,
WP:BURO--
Unikalinho (
talk)
08:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The outcome of this nomination could be used for speedy nominations of the child categories but that seems like more work. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have opportunity to do this. I think this can be done by any participant or reader of this discussion. As well, the admin may rename the categories singly, following to the consensus.
WP:POINT,
WP:BURO--
Unikalinho (
talk)
08:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes but you do need to list and tag them, if the nomination stays poorly formatted like this a closing admin will most likely only process the top category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
-
Category:Dnipropetrovsk, all the 10 subcategories, and all theirs subcategories. In my opinion, it is clear--
Unikalinho (
talk)
05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rename with all categories associated to the city. Be careful not rename the categories of the oblast! gidonb ( talk) 03:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to blindly match the main article name. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 (
non-admin closure). I suppose there is no procedural objection if a discussion is closed by the nominator in case like this with a clear keep consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Masada to Category:Siege of Masada
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the articles in this category are about the siege, i.e. about a historic event, not about geography. If the category is renamed, geographic parent categories (e.g. museums, parks) should be moved from the category page to the article Masada. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the rename won't change much, except narrowing the scope of the category; currently also Masada National Park can belong to it and of course Yigal Yadin and Pillage of Ein Gedi. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- Merging a category to an article does not work. The only purpose in splitting the seige from the rest would be if there was a great deal of content, but I doubt there ever will be here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep -- The siege, previous, and subsequent events were in the same location (Masada) so from a taxonomy perspective the rename is not an improvement. The Siege of Masada can be a subcategory of Masada (and some historical events), however, like my colleagues above, I do not see the justification right now. The Masada category is working just fine. Thanks Marcocapelle, for initiating an interesting discussion on time and space dimensions. gidonb ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.