July 12
Category:New Generation Cooperatives
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
03:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:New Generation Cooperatives to Category:Cooperatives
- Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, which don't seem to have much to distinguish them from other categorisations of coops. No article on the topic. I suspect there are many co-ops which have adaptated "traditional cooperative structures", but I don't see that they need a separate category, when we dont have a category for traditional cooperatives. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - The number of articles should have no bearing on taxonomy. In fact the newness of them is what makes them notable and distinct. Perhaps a categorization is now needed for coops. The Columbian Journalism Librarian ( talk) 13:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, not a defining characteristic. It makes a WP:ORish impression. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the real world the number of articles is critical for our categorisation scheme. We are categorising the contents of the encyclopedia, not abstract concepts. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge. In practice, two of the three member pages are already members of Category:Agricultural cooperatives in the United States, so all that is needed is for Fourth Estate (association) to be moved into Category:Cooperatives in the United States, then the nominated category can be deleted. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 13 August 2018 (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.
Category:Male computer scientists
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Male computer scientists to Category:Computer scientists (contains 2 articles)
- Propose merging Category:Programming languages created by men to Category:Programming languages (contains no articles and 2 sub-categories)
- Nominator rationale - Per WP:CATGENDER and previous discussions, such as Category by gender and Categories by gender: gender has no specific relation to the topic. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - there is ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and it is my recollection that there should either be both or neither. (There are plenty of male computer scientists.)
Oculi (
talk)
17:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The
guideline gives explicit examples where a gender-specific category is eligible and the other is not, such as
Female heads of government. Here, the specific role of
women in computing (and in science in general) is a knowledgeable field of study and the subject of much research (see also articles
Women in engineering,
History of women in engineering,
Women in science etc.), not because women perform differently, but because they face, or have faced, specific challenges, while there is no equivalent for the role of males/men. So I believe we are in the precise same situation described by the guideline.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, and
Category:Computer scientists should be non-diffusing, ie women should be in both ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and
Category:Computer scientists. So support.
Oculi (
talk)
23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with a non-diffusing subcategory for women computer scientists and neighbour female categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, and
Category:Computer scientists should be non-diffusing, ie women should be in both ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and
Category:Computer scientists. So support.
Oculi (
talk)
23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- The
guideline gives explicit examples where a gender-specific category is eligible and the other is not, such as
Female heads of government. Here, the specific role of
women in computing (and in science in general) is a knowledgeable field of study and the subject of much research (see also articles
Women in engineering,
History of women in engineering,
Women in science etc.), not because women perform differently, but because they face, or have faced, specific challenges, while there is no equivalent for the role of males/men. So I believe we are in the precise same situation described by the guideline.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Both sex categories should be deleted unless someone can provide reliable sources that computer scientists do what they do differently due to their sex. This is not a case, like golfers (e.g.) where the sexes compete in wholly separate competitions in sex-segregated settings. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is Category:Men in computing (a recent creation) and associated kin. Oculi ( talk) 15:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Those, when tagged, can be axed as well for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are Gender disparity in computing and Women in computing which might provide a rationale. Oculi ( talk) 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- They provide a rationale for women in science/computing... categories, not male categories. See above comment and WP:CATGENDER guideline. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is sex disparity in everything - that doesn't make categorization appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge back (also any female categories). Programming is not sex-segregated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to nominate any female category in a new discussion. However in my understanding, it is community practice, reflected in the WP:CATGENDER guideline, to allow gender-specific categories not balanced directly against an opposite-gender category, when historically the vast majority of a function has been associated with a specific gender. This most often makes gender balancing in this function, or the progress of the minority gender in this function, a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (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.
Category:Fraternities
- 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, no action required. (Message me if you think I have misunderstood the consensus.) –
Fayenatic
London
22:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fraternities to Category:Fraternities and sororities
- Nominator's rationale: To include both fraternities and sororities. If there is to be a hierarchy - and I dont think its needed - the more inclusive category should be at the top Rathfelder ( talk) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the nom is correct in that the inclusion is the wrong way round, due to an error. The solution is to correct the error, now done. Category:Fraternities and sororities now includes Category:Fraternities and Category:Sororities, as one might expect. Oculi ( talk) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- My edit has been reverted (now restored) so perhaps someone familiar with the rules of logic could assist in keeping an eye on this. Oculi ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I might well support an upmerging of both Category:Fraternities and Category:Sororities to Category:Fraternities and sororities (to prevent editors getting inclusions bass-ackwards). Oculi ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to throw in that it is messier than this. (Not sure how to add this discussion to WP:FRAT). Fraternities and Sororities as a *group* term, (especially capitalized) referring to the Greek Letter Organization system which descends from Phi Beta Kappa in concept to include the Social, Honorary, and professional Collegiate groups as well as some related spinoffs (not all of them using Greek Letters see, for example, FarmHouse. and Sorority as a category would certainly be a subcategory since the only use of an organization calling itself a sorority comes off of that concept in the 1880s. However Fraternity is a considerably broader concept than just collegiate organizations mostly derived from Phi Beta Kappa, so in that regard, Sorority would be a subcat of Fraternities and Sororities and *that* would be a subcat of Fraternities. USA doesn't really help as a dab term since a group number of them are outside the USA, Collegiate might be better, but somewhat inaccurate (a few groups formed using Greek Letters where specifically designed to be professional only) Naraht ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- A solution to this problem could be to upmerge Category:Fraternities to Category:Men's organizations, then to convert Category:Fraternities to a category disambiguation page, redirecting to both Category:Fraternal orders and Category:Fraternities and sororities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep (and re-split) Fraternities are for men (brothers) and sororities for women (sisters). Where there are articles covering both they can go into a joint category, because they are the same kind of thing, but we should not merge male-only with female-only organisations. However I am not an American: if I am wholly wrong, ignore me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment per main articles,
Fraternities refer to any fraternal orders or organizations (not only in American colleges), while
Fraternities and sororities refer to student fraternities and sororities in North America, [...] or Greek letter organizations (GLOs) (collectively referred to as "Greek life") [which] are
social organizations at
colleges and
universities. A form of the social
fraternity, they are prominent in the United States. Therefore, the reverse inclusion is correct, although not intuitive. I suggets the following structure:
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- Category:Fraternities and sororities (in the American college sense)
- Which name do you find more appropriate?
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, the American Collegiate Fraternity system has spread well beyond the United States, see the members of
Category:Fraternities_and_sororities_by_country, some of those are greek letter organizations descending from the USA Phi Beta Kappa model, like Canada, the Philippines and Israel, others come from the German(?) Tradition like those countries in Eastern Europe. And while College isn't completely accurate either (See
Delta Kappa Gamma, it isn't horrible. OTOH, "Greek Life" *is* horrible.
Naraht (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "American Collegiate Fraternity" system is still very much American even when expanding abroad, and American or American-style fraternities would still be used to describe them. However, I have no objection in using college organization or student organization as disambiguator. I agree that "Greek life" is horrible, my Greek or Greek-American friends (as in "from Greece") always have a weird feeling about it. (ΩΠΑ!)
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and no, the Fraternity and Sorority system in the Philippines *scares* the groups that have the same names in the USA and has hazing issues significantly worse than the USA. But the concept of using 2 or 3 (for the most part) greek letters and tracing back to Phi Beta Kappa definitely represents a grouping. I'm not sure whether at that level whether the
Studentenverbindung and the similar traditions in Eastern Europe should be grouped with that or not. *Definitely* doesn't come from the USA concepts of student groups. And in regards to ΩΠΑ, do you mean the secular fraternity founded at City College of New York in 1901?
[1]
Naraht (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Naraht: It was actually a reference both to the Greek greeting
Opa! (either spelled
ώπα or
όπα) and to the initiative a few years back by some students to create a Greek organization which is actually Greek in culture, which they called
Omicron Pi Alpha.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Place Clichy OK. Sort or surprised that Omicron is an alternate there, now that I think about when I've heard the greek expression, I've always heard it with a long (English) O. And interesting on the group. and category greek life in two ways. Naraht ( talk) 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Naraht: It was actually a reference both to the Greek greeting
Opa! (either spelled
ώπα or
όπα) and to the initiative a few years back by some students to create a Greek organization which is actually Greek in culture, which they called
Omicron Pi Alpha.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and no, the Fraternity and Sorority system in the Philippines *scares* the groups that have the same names in the USA and has hazing issues significantly worse than the USA. But the concept of using 2 or 3 (for the most part) greek letters and tracing back to Phi Beta Kappa definitely represents a grouping. I'm not sure whether at that level whether the
Studentenverbindung and the similar traditions in Eastern Europe should be grouped with that or not. *Definitely* doesn't come from the USA concepts of student groups. And in regards to ΩΠΑ, do you mean the secular fraternity founded at City College of New York in 1901?
[1]
Naraht (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "American Collegiate Fraternity" system is still very much American even when expanding abroad, and American or American-style fraternities would still be used to describe them. However, I have no objection in using college organization or student organization as disambiguator. I agree that "Greek life" is horrible, my Greek or Greek-American friends (as in "from Greece") always have a weird feeling about it. (ΩΠΑ!)
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, the American Collegiate Fraternity system has spread well beyond the United States, see the members of
Category:Fraternities_and_sororities_by_country, some of those are greek letter organizations descending from the USA Phi Beta Kappa model, like Canada, the Philippines and Israel, others come from the German(?) Tradition like those countries in Eastern Europe. And while College isn't completely accurate either (See
Delta Kappa Gamma, it isn't horrible. OTOH, "Greek Life" *is* horrible.
Naraht (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- I do not think we need an extra category layer, that would merely complicate things. It would be sufficient to have:
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- Category:Fraternities and sororities (college organizations) (in the american college sense) <- renamed
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
-
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am having mixed feelings about keeping a separate subcat for sororities and not for collegiate fraternities. while most content in
Fraternities and sororities is common, some is exclusive to either fraternities and sororities:
- Content exclusive to Sororities: Category:Defunct sororities (3 P), Category:College sorority founders (4 C, 3 P), Category:Sorority houses (2 P), Category:Christian sororities, articles Defunct North American collegiate sororities, Sigma Psi, Sorority recruitment and redirect Sorority
- Content exclusive to Fraternities:
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images (not exclusive to fraternities, being renamed), Category:College fraternity founders (21 C, 10 P, 1 F), Category:Christian fraternities
-
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images is definitely well mixed and includes social fraternities, social sororities, professional fraternities (some of which are co-ed) and I think an honor society or two. Think of it as pre-merged. :)
Naraht (
talk)
16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I nominated Category:Fraternity coats of arms images for speedy renaming to follow the category structure. I also found Category:Christian sororities and Category:Christian fraternities, which have specific content to one type of organization. I'm adding them to the list above. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images is definitely well mixed and includes social fraternities, social sororities, professional fraternities (some of which are co-ed) and I think an honor society or two. Think of it as pre-merged. :)
Naraht (
talk)
16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am having mixed feelings about keeping a separate subcat for sororities and not for collegiate fraternities. while most content in
Fraternities and sororities is common, some is exclusive to either fraternities and sororities:
- 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:Italian goalkeepers
- 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/merge. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization, Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers already exist as the categories, which is common practice. S.A. Julio ( talk) 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio ( talk) 15:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, overcat. Giant Snowman 15:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete why do we need this? Hhkohh ( talk) 15:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge not delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:03, 15 July 2018 (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.
Category:Fraternal service organizations
- 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: split, merging to Category:Mutual organizations except those that are currently in the tree of Category:Fraternal orders. Note 1: For the record, some history of this category is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_9#Category:Fraternal_and_service_organizations. Note 2: I will merge the interwiki links to the Wikidata page for Category:Fraternal orders, as this seem a better fit than the one for Mutual orgs, and has no clashes. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fraternal service organizations to Category:Mutual organizations
- Nominator's rationale: Undefined intermediate category. There is actually no article Fraternal service organizations. There is Category:Fraternities and some of the articles might better there. There are enough articles to subcategorise them by country, but I'm not sure whether that would be better done using Category:Fraternities and sororities by country Rathfelder ( talk) 14:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge the definition of "mutual organizations" (helping our members) and "service organizations" (serving a wider community) would appear to be incompatible but in application appear congruent. Mutual organizations, we are told, are organizations for mutual benefit of their members, and "exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide". Examples given are finance and insurance. However, presumably, nearly every organization without an overriding altruistic bent could fall into such a definition. While we have no article Fraternal service organizations, we can find its contours from some examples in the category: Freemasonry, various religious organizations, Apartheid organizations like Afrikaner Broederbond, and such. While one could argue that these fraternal service organizations have an overriding altruistic bent differentiating them from mutual organizations, I think it stretches credulity to impart such altruism to freemasons, religious organizations, and ethno-political ones such as find themselves categorized here. We also have Category:Charities which should contain the purely altruistic organizations. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, the main article is Benefit society so an alternative could be to rename the category to Category:Benefit societies but I am not sure if the difference between benefit societies and mutual organizations is sufficiently clear. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Another comment, I presume (when reading the rationale) that the nomination should actually be read as "split" rather than "merge", because a number of articles (when scrolling through the articles I believe a pretty large number of articles) should be moved to Category:Fraternities or to some of its other subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have tried to sort the articles into appropriate sub categories, but I am puzzled to work out exactly how Fraternal service organizations are to be distinguished from Mutual organizations. Many are clearly Fraternal orders, and they clearly have distinguishing characteristics, and have been unnecessarily overcategorised. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- It seems an impossible task since we have no clear definition of one side and the other is defined so broadly to swallow any rational definition one could proffer. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- A pragmatic solution could be to move articles to Category:Mutual organizations except those that are currently in the tree of Category:Fraternal orders and then delete the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with that approach. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Happy with Marcocapelle's solution. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with @
Marcocapelle:'s solution. In any case,
Category:Fraternal service organizations has no place in
Category:Fraternities and sororities as they are not college organizations.
Place Clichy (
talk)
14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Place Clichy: I guess your comment refers to the discussion two sections higher on this page.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: No, my agreement refers indeed to split Fraternal service organizations between Mutual organizations and Fraternal orders along the lines you suggested. My other comment is a digression. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Place Clichy: I guess your comment refers to the discussion two sections higher on this page.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I changed the parent back from Category:Fraternities and sororities to Category:Fraternities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 19 July 2018 (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.
Category:Certified albums in Romania
- 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. Timrollpickering 09:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per precedence over the years these categories are considered redundant and have been deleted. — IB [ Poke ] 06:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment to @
IndianBio: I assume you mean precedents. For easy reference, please would you quote one or more precedents? –
Fayenatic
London
19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @ Fayenatic london: sorry I meant precedent only. The following links: 1, 2, 3 should be enough and there are many more. — IB [ Poke ] 08:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Thanks for the above links; from those I found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_15#Category:Albums_by_certification, which is pretty good authority that all such categories are WP:NON-DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 16 July 2018 (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.
Category:Far-right politicians 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.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I will create
Category:Far-right politicians by nationality as a container to hold these along with the British and Norwegian categories pending possible further discussions. –
Fayenatic
London
21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in India (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in France (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Irish far-right politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Far-right politicians from Northern Ireland
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in India (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OR, against standard and inaccurate category. Sources don't describe the added politicians as "far-right". Though some of them are associated with a far-right political group, but for that you have Category:Far-right politics in India, just like for the US you have Far-right politics in the United States but not Category:Far-right politicians in the United States. D4iNa4 ( talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, I have taken the liberty to merge the two discussions, and to add another two (Irish and NI) nominations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have any evidence that the sources do not refer to the various Indian people as far-right politicians? The RSS, VHP and other Hindutva-type groups most definitely are described as far-right, fascist etc, so one would imagine that people who are officials in those groups must be. And, even if you are correct, is there any reason for not proposing a merge with Category:Far-right politics in India rather than delete? - Sitush ( talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I had nominated [2] and [3] for deletion. Other two were added by Marcocapelle. I cant see any sources defining Yogi Adityanath or Pierre Lagaillarde as a "far-right politician", but he is associated with a far-right group. This is why I had mentioned some of the individuals being "associated with a far-right political group". Categories under this title are only 4 compared to 43 of the "Far-right politics". [4] I thought deletion is better because existence of such category names will encourage creation of more similar categories. I am not opposed to replacing the category, in fact I was going to replace them already before starting this CFD but policies on CFD forbids it. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- keep perfectly legitimate categories to group people together, based as all categories are on the article content. Hmains ( talk) 03:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- When none of those sources describe them as "far-right", it is WP:OR. Also see deletion of a similar category before. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, I found this related discussion. Of course, consensus may change. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Question, can't we describe far-right politicians by more precise terminology dependent on time and country and use the term "far right" as a container category only? For example containing Category:Fascists, Category:Hindu nationalists and Category:White supremacists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Category isn't useful, as is too subjective with no definite criteria and will hinder rather than help people finding things. Category has pages without any backing sources, the rationale is it is in a generic sense. Half of the entries in "Far-right Politicians in India" are not even "Politicians". -- Gian ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep part of a tree Category:Far-right politics by country; if categorizing by far-right is problematic as OR or SUBJ; the whole tree should be discussed rather than just taking a few branches we dislike for whatever reason and prune selectively. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the topic Far-right politics, but with labelling people as Far-right politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are many individuals in the parent categories of these, thus the problem remains - if a problem there is. Like "liberal", "conservative", "socialist", and any political label, there is an inherent problem in naming which would probably be better handled by labelling by party name but inevitably some general categorization of such parties would roll up. Moreover, meanings differ in different jurisdictions: a Republican in the US and a Republican in the UK have quite different agendas. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Fully agree, that's also why I proposed this (and similar categories) should be a container category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep but transform into Diffusion-only categories. These categories are useful and the topic is notable, but placing individual biographic articles brings a lot of problems: the label is often pejorative, the definition of far-right varies greatly with country and period of time etc. Seeing that Michel Poniatowski (a pillar of Giscard's center-right party UDF) has been labelled as far-right politician since 2007 shows of how wrongful inclusions to these categories can easily appear. Therefore I believe that only specific subcategories (e.g. politicians by party) should be allowed and not individual articles. In that I agree with @ Marcocapelle:'s comment. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is also Category:English far-right politicians, and a Scottish one, but that only these few countries have such a category shows there is a problem. Where is the US, Germany, Pakistan, etc etc? A less POV term is needed. I don't think just adding parties works - Fine Gael, which governs Ireland about half the time, is by no stretch a far- or hard-right party, but the Irish category shows it has harboured and promoted some very far-right types over the years. Many other "centre-right" parties acrross the world show the same. Some form of "nationalist" might work. Johnbod ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2018 (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.
July 12
Category:New Generation Cooperatives
- 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.
ℯ
xplicit
03:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:New Generation Cooperatives to Category:Cooperatives
- Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, which don't seem to have much to distinguish them from other categorisations of coops. No article on the topic. I suspect there are many co-ops which have adaptated "traditional cooperative structures", but I don't see that they need a separate category, when we dont have a category for traditional cooperatives. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - The number of articles should have no bearing on taxonomy. In fact the newness of them is what makes them notable and distinct. Perhaps a categorization is now needed for coops. The Columbian Journalism Librarian ( talk) 13:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge, not a defining characteristic. It makes a WP:ORish impression. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the real world the number of articles is critical for our categorisation scheme. We are categorising the contents of the encyclopedia, not abstract concepts. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge. In practice, two of the three member pages are already members of Category:Agricultural cooperatives in the United States, so all that is needed is for Fourth Estate (association) to be moved into Category:Cooperatives in the United States, then the nominated category can be deleted. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 13 August 2018 (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.
Category:Male computer scientists
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Male computer scientists to Category:Computer scientists (contains 2 articles)
- Propose merging Category:Programming languages created by men to Category:Programming languages (contains no articles and 2 sub-categories)
- Nominator rationale - Per WP:CATGENDER and previous discussions, such as Category by gender and Categories by gender: gender has no specific relation to the topic. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - there is ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and it is my recollection that there should either be both or neither. (There are plenty of male computer scientists.)
Oculi (
talk)
17:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The
guideline gives explicit examples where a gender-specific category is eligible and the other is not, such as
Female heads of government. Here, the specific role of
women in computing (and in science in general) is a knowledgeable field of study and the subject of much research (see also articles
Women in engineering,
History of women in engineering,
Women in science etc.), not because women perform differently, but because they face, or have faced, specific challenges, while there is no equivalent for the role of males/men. So I believe we are in the precise same situation described by the guideline.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, and
Category:Computer scientists should be non-diffusing, ie women should be in both ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and
Category:Computer scientists. So support.
Oculi (
talk)
23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with a non-diffusing subcategory for women computer scientists and neighbour female categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it, and
Category:Computer scientists should be non-diffusing, ie women should be in both ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Women computer scientists and
Category:Computer scientists. So support.
Oculi (
talk)
23:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- The
guideline gives explicit examples where a gender-specific category is eligible and the other is not, such as
Female heads of government. Here, the specific role of
women in computing (and in science in general) is a knowledgeable field of study and the subject of much research (see also articles
Women in engineering,
History of women in engineering,
Women in science etc.), not because women perform differently, but because they face, or have faced, specific challenges, while there is no equivalent for the role of males/men. So I believe we are in the precise same situation described by the guideline.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Both sex categories should be deleted unless someone can provide reliable sources that computer scientists do what they do differently due to their sex. This is not a case, like golfers (e.g.) where the sexes compete in wholly separate competitions in sex-segregated settings. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is Category:Men in computing (a recent creation) and associated kin. Oculi ( talk) 15:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Those, when tagged, can be axed as well for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are Gender disparity in computing and Women in computing which might provide a rationale. Oculi ( talk) 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- They provide a rationale for women in science/computing... categories, not male categories. See above comment and WP:CATGENDER guideline. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is sex disparity in everything - that doesn't make categorization appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge back (also any female categories). Programming is not sex-segregated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to nominate any female category in a new discussion. However in my understanding, it is community practice, reflected in the WP:CATGENDER guideline, to allow gender-specific categories not balanced directly against an opposite-gender category, when historically the vast majority of a function has been associated with a specific gender. This most often makes gender balancing in this function, or the progress of the minority gender in this function, a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (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.
Category:Fraternities
- 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, no action required. (Message me if you think I have misunderstood the consensus.) –
Fayenatic
London
22:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fraternities to Category:Fraternities and sororities
- Nominator's rationale: To include both fraternities and sororities. If there is to be a hierarchy - and I dont think its needed - the more inclusive category should be at the top Rathfelder ( talk) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the nom is correct in that the inclusion is the wrong way round, due to an error. The solution is to correct the error, now done. Category:Fraternities and sororities now includes Category:Fraternities and Category:Sororities, as one might expect. Oculi ( talk) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- My edit has been reverted (now restored) so perhaps someone familiar with the rules of logic could assist in keeping an eye on this. Oculi ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I might well support an upmerging of both Category:Fraternities and Category:Sororities to Category:Fraternities and sororities (to prevent editors getting inclusions bass-ackwards). Oculi ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to throw in that it is messier than this. (Not sure how to add this discussion to WP:FRAT). Fraternities and Sororities as a *group* term, (especially capitalized) referring to the Greek Letter Organization system which descends from Phi Beta Kappa in concept to include the Social, Honorary, and professional Collegiate groups as well as some related spinoffs (not all of them using Greek Letters see, for example, FarmHouse. and Sorority as a category would certainly be a subcategory since the only use of an organization calling itself a sorority comes off of that concept in the 1880s. However Fraternity is a considerably broader concept than just collegiate organizations mostly derived from Phi Beta Kappa, so in that regard, Sorority would be a subcat of Fraternities and Sororities and *that* would be a subcat of Fraternities. USA doesn't really help as a dab term since a group number of them are outside the USA, Collegiate might be better, but somewhat inaccurate (a few groups formed using Greek Letters where specifically designed to be professional only) Naraht ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- A solution to this problem could be to upmerge Category:Fraternities to Category:Men's organizations, then to convert Category:Fraternities to a category disambiguation page, redirecting to both Category:Fraternal orders and Category:Fraternities and sororities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep (and re-split) Fraternities are for men (brothers) and sororities for women (sisters). Where there are articles covering both they can go into a joint category, because they are the same kind of thing, but we should not merge male-only with female-only organisations. However I am not an American: if I am wholly wrong, ignore me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment per main articles,
Fraternities refer to any fraternal orders or organizations (not only in American colleges), while
Fraternities and sororities refer to student fraternities and sororities in North America, [...] or Greek letter organizations (GLOs) (collectively referred to as "Greek life") [which] are
social organizations at
colleges and
universities. A form of the social
fraternity, they are prominent in the United States. Therefore, the reverse inclusion is correct, although not intuitive. I suggets the following structure:
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- Category:Fraternities and sororities (in the American college sense)
- Which name do you find more appropriate?
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, the American Collegiate Fraternity system has spread well beyond the United States, see the members of
Category:Fraternities_and_sororities_by_country, some of those are greek letter organizations descending from the USA Phi Beta Kappa model, like Canada, the Philippines and Israel, others come from the German(?) Tradition like those countries in Eastern Europe. And while College isn't completely accurate either (See
Delta Kappa Gamma, it isn't horrible. OTOH, "Greek Life" *is* horrible.
Naraht (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "American Collegiate Fraternity" system is still very much American even when expanding abroad, and American or American-style fraternities would still be used to describe them. However, I have no objection in using college organization or student organization as disambiguator. I agree that "Greek life" is horrible, my Greek or Greek-American friends (as in "from Greece") always have a weird feeling about it. (ΩΠΑ!)
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and no, the Fraternity and Sorority system in the Philippines *scares* the groups that have the same names in the USA and has hazing issues significantly worse than the USA. But the concept of using 2 or 3 (for the most part) greek letters and tracing back to Phi Beta Kappa definitely represents a grouping. I'm not sure whether at that level whether the
Studentenverbindung and the similar traditions in Eastern Europe should be grouped with that or not. *Definitely* doesn't come from the USA concepts of student groups. And in regards to ΩΠΑ, do you mean the secular fraternity founded at City College of New York in 1901?
[1]
Naraht (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Naraht: It was actually a reference both to the Greek greeting
Opa! (either spelled
ώπα or
όπα) and to the initiative a few years back by some students to create a Greek organization which is actually Greek in culture, which they called
Omicron Pi Alpha.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Place Clichy OK. Sort or surprised that Omicron is an alternate there, now that I think about when I've heard the greek expression, I've always heard it with a long (English) O. And interesting on the group. and category greek life in two ways. Naraht ( talk) 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Naraht: It was actually a reference both to the Greek greeting
Opa! (either spelled
ώπα or
όπα) and to the initiative a few years back by some students to create a Greek organization which is actually Greek in culture, which they called
Omicron Pi Alpha.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and no, the Fraternity and Sorority system in the Philippines *scares* the groups that have the same names in the USA and has hazing issues significantly worse than the USA. But the concept of using 2 or 3 (for the most part) greek letters and tracing back to Phi Beta Kappa definitely represents a grouping. I'm not sure whether at that level whether the
Studentenverbindung and the similar traditions in Eastern Europe should be grouped with that or not. *Definitely* doesn't come from the USA concepts of student groups. And in regards to ΩΠΑ, do you mean the secular fraternity founded at City College of New York in 1901?
[1]
Naraht (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "American Collegiate Fraternity" system is still very much American even when expanding abroad, and American or American-style fraternities would still be used to describe them. However, I have no objection in using college organization or student organization as disambiguator. I agree that "Greek life" is horrible, my Greek or Greek-American friends (as in "from Greece") always have a weird feeling about it. (ΩΠΑ!)
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, the American Collegiate Fraternity system has spread well beyond the United States, see the members of
Category:Fraternities_and_sororities_by_country, some of those are greek letter organizations descending from the USA Phi Beta Kappa model, like Canada, the Philippines and Israel, others come from the German(?) Tradition like those countries in Eastern Europe. And while College isn't completely accurate either (See
Delta Kappa Gamma, it isn't horrible. OTOH, "Greek Life" *is* horrible.
Naraht (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- I do not think we need an extra category layer, that would merely complicate things. It would be sufficient to have:
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
- Category:Fraternities and sororities (college organizations) (in the american college sense) <- renamed
-
Category:Fraternities (in the general sense)
-
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am having mixed feelings about keeping a separate subcat for sororities and not for collegiate fraternities. while most content in
Fraternities and sororities is common, some is exclusive to either fraternities and sororities:
- Content exclusive to Sororities: Category:Defunct sororities (3 P), Category:College sorority founders (4 C, 3 P), Category:Sorority houses (2 P), Category:Christian sororities, articles Defunct North American collegiate sororities, Sigma Psi, Sorority recruitment and redirect Sorority
- Content exclusive to Fraternities:
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images (not exclusive to fraternities, being renamed), Category:College fraternity founders (21 C, 10 P, 1 F), Category:Christian fraternities
-
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images is definitely well mixed and includes social fraternities, social sororities, professional fraternities (some of which are co-ed) and I think an honor society or two. Think of it as pre-merged. :)
Naraht (
talk)
16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I nominated Category:Fraternity coats of arms images for speedy renaming to follow the category structure. I also found Category:Christian sororities and Category:Christian fraternities, which have specific content to one type of organization. I'm adding them to the list above. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
-
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images is definitely well mixed and includes social fraternities, social sororities, professional fraternities (some of which are co-ed) and I think an honor society or two. Think of it as pre-merged. :)
Naraht (
talk)
16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am having mixed feelings about keeping a separate subcat for sororities and not for collegiate fraternities. while most content in
Fraternities and sororities is common, some is exclusive to either fraternities and sororities:
- 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:Italian goalkeepers
- 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/merge. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization, Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers already exist as the categories, which is common practice. S.A. Julio ( talk) 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio ( talk) 15:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, overcat. Giant Snowman 15:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete why do we need this? Hhkohh ( talk) 15:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge not delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:03, 15 July 2018 (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.
Category:Fraternal service organizations
- 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: split, merging to Category:Mutual organizations except those that are currently in the tree of Category:Fraternal orders. Note 1: For the record, some history of this category is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_9#Category:Fraternal_and_service_organizations. Note 2: I will merge the interwiki links to the Wikidata page for Category:Fraternal orders, as this seem a better fit than the one for Mutual orgs, and has no clashes. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fraternal service organizations to Category:Mutual organizations
- Nominator's rationale: Undefined intermediate category. There is actually no article Fraternal service organizations. There is Category:Fraternities and some of the articles might better there. There are enough articles to subcategorise them by country, but I'm not sure whether that would be better done using Category:Fraternities and sororities by country Rathfelder ( talk) 14:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge the definition of "mutual organizations" (helping our members) and "service organizations" (serving a wider community) would appear to be incompatible but in application appear congruent. Mutual organizations, we are told, are organizations for mutual benefit of their members, and "exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide". Examples given are finance and insurance. However, presumably, nearly every organization without an overriding altruistic bent could fall into such a definition. While we have no article Fraternal service organizations, we can find its contours from some examples in the category: Freemasonry, various religious organizations, Apartheid organizations like Afrikaner Broederbond, and such. While one could argue that these fraternal service organizations have an overriding altruistic bent differentiating them from mutual organizations, I think it stretches credulity to impart such altruism to freemasons, religious organizations, and ethno-political ones such as find themselves categorized here. We also have Category:Charities which should contain the purely altruistic organizations. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, the main article is Benefit society so an alternative could be to rename the category to Category:Benefit societies but I am not sure if the difference between benefit societies and mutual organizations is sufficiently clear. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Another comment, I presume (when reading the rationale) that the nomination should actually be read as "split" rather than "merge", because a number of articles (when scrolling through the articles I believe a pretty large number of articles) should be moved to Category:Fraternities or to some of its other subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have tried to sort the articles into appropriate sub categories, but I am puzzled to work out exactly how Fraternal service organizations are to be distinguished from Mutual organizations. Many are clearly Fraternal orders, and they clearly have distinguishing characteristics, and have been unnecessarily overcategorised. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- It seems an impossible task since we have no clear definition of one side and the other is defined so broadly to swallow any rational definition one could proffer. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- A pragmatic solution could be to move articles to Category:Mutual organizations except those that are currently in the tree of Category:Fraternal orders and then delete the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with that approach. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Happy with Marcocapelle's solution. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with @
Marcocapelle:'s solution. In any case,
Category:Fraternal service organizations has no place in
Category:Fraternities and sororities as they are not college organizations.
Place Clichy (
talk)
14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Place Clichy: I guess your comment refers to the discussion two sections higher on this page.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: No, my agreement refers indeed to split Fraternal service organizations between Mutual organizations and Fraternal orders along the lines you suggested. My other comment is a digression. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Place Clichy: I guess your comment refers to the discussion two sections higher on this page.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I changed the parent back from Category:Fraternities and sororities to Category:Fraternities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 19 July 2018 (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.
Category:Certified albums in Romania
- 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. Timrollpickering 09:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per precedence over the years these categories are considered redundant and have been deleted. — IB [ Poke ] 06:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment to @
IndianBio: I assume you mean precedents. For easy reference, please would you quote one or more precedents? –
Fayenatic
London
19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @ Fayenatic london: sorry I meant precedent only. The following links: 1, 2, 3 should be enough and there are many more. — IB [ Poke ] 08:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Thanks for the above links; from those I found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_15#Category:Albums_by_certification, which is pretty good authority that all such categories are WP:NON-DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 16 July 2018 (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.
Category:Far-right politicians 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.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I will create
Category:Far-right politicians by nationality as a container to hold these along with the British and Norwegian categories pending possible further discussions. –
Fayenatic
London
21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in India (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in France (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Irish far-right politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Far-right politicians from Northern Ireland
- Propose deleting
Category:Far-right politicians in India (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OR, against standard and inaccurate category. Sources don't describe the added politicians as "far-right". Though some of them are associated with a far-right political group, but for that you have Category:Far-right politics in India, just like for the US you have Far-right politics in the United States but not Category:Far-right politicians in the United States. D4iNa4 ( talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, I have taken the liberty to merge the two discussions, and to add another two (Irish and NI) nominations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have any evidence that the sources do not refer to the various Indian people as far-right politicians? The RSS, VHP and other Hindutva-type groups most definitely are described as far-right, fascist etc, so one would imagine that people who are officials in those groups must be. And, even if you are correct, is there any reason for not proposing a merge with Category:Far-right politics in India rather than delete? - Sitush ( talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I had nominated [2] and [3] for deletion. Other two were added by Marcocapelle. I cant see any sources defining Yogi Adityanath or Pierre Lagaillarde as a "far-right politician", but he is associated with a far-right group. This is why I had mentioned some of the individuals being "associated with a far-right political group". Categories under this title are only 4 compared to 43 of the "Far-right politics". [4] I thought deletion is better because existence of such category names will encourage creation of more similar categories. I am not opposed to replacing the category, in fact I was going to replace them already before starting this CFD but policies on CFD forbids it. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- keep perfectly legitimate categories to group people together, based as all categories are on the article content. Hmains ( talk) 03:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- When none of those sources describe them as "far-right", it is WP:OR. Also see deletion of a similar category before. D4iNa4 ( talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, I found this related discussion. Of course, consensus may change. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Question, can't we describe far-right politicians by more precise terminology dependent on time and country and use the term "far right" as a container category only? For example containing Category:Fascists, Category:Hindu nationalists and Category:White supremacists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Category isn't useful, as is too subjective with no definite criteria and will hinder rather than help people finding things. Category has pages without any backing sources, the rationale is it is in a generic sense. Half of the entries in "Far-right Politicians in India" are not even "Politicians". -- Gian ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep part of a tree Category:Far-right politics by country; if categorizing by far-right is problematic as OR or SUBJ; the whole tree should be discussed rather than just taking a few branches we dislike for whatever reason and prune selectively. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is not with the topic Far-right politics, but with labelling people as Far-right politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are many individuals in the parent categories of these, thus the problem remains - if a problem there is. Like "liberal", "conservative", "socialist", and any political label, there is an inherent problem in naming which would probably be better handled by labelling by party name but inevitably some general categorization of such parties would roll up. Moreover, meanings differ in different jurisdictions: a Republican in the US and a Republican in the UK have quite different agendas. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Fully agree, that's also why I proposed this (and similar categories) should be a container category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep but transform into Diffusion-only categories. These categories are useful and the topic is notable, but placing individual biographic articles brings a lot of problems: the label is often pejorative, the definition of far-right varies greatly with country and period of time etc. Seeing that Michel Poniatowski (a pillar of Giscard's center-right party UDF) has been labelled as far-right politician since 2007 shows of how wrongful inclusions to these categories can easily appear. Therefore I believe that only specific subcategories (e.g. politicians by party) should be allowed and not individual articles. In that I agree with @ Marcocapelle:'s comment. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is also Category:English far-right politicians, and a Scottish one, but that only these few countries have such a category shows there is a problem. Where is the US, Germany, Pakistan, etc etc? A less POV term is needed. I don't think just adding parties works - Fine Gael, which governs Ireland about half the time, is by no stretch a far- or hard-right party, but the Irish category shows it has harboured and promoted some very far-right types over the years. Many other "centre-right" parties acrross the world show the same. Some form of "nationalist" might work. Johnbod ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2018 (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.