August 21
Category:Internet Protocol addresses
- 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 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Internet Protocol addresses to Category:IP addresses
- Nominator's rationale: "IP address" is an abbreviation for "Internet Protocol address"; the scope of these two categories is identical. I'm proposing using the abbreviation, rather than the full name, because the parent article is IP address, and Internet Protocol address is simply a redirect to it. Nyttend ( talk) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Probable oppose. Category:IP addresses seems to be about the 'topic' of IP addresses; Category:Internet Protocol addresses is a list of 'specific' IP addresses, and probably needs to be a sub-category of the Category:IP addresses, and possibly a rename to highlight that. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, we probably ought to rename it to "Individual IP addresses"; see Category:Individual chickens and its parent Category:Chicken. However, that kind of thing is important with individual animals, with individual signs underneath Category:Signage, etc., but in those cases there are lots of articles in both levels of the tree, so splitting between the broad concept and the individual examples is important for size reasons. Here, we have only 37 pages between the two categories; merging won't produce a category that needs to be reduced in size. Nyttend ( talk) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Changing that to Comment. I have no strong feelings either way. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support There is no useful distinction between the topic of IP addresses and a handful of specific IP addresses. At any rate, the specific IP addresses category includes Gateway address which is not useful—it's not a specific IP address. Putting the small number of articles in one category would reduce confusion for editors and readers, and be more useful for readers. Also, the category sorting mechanism will show a clear distinction between the general theory and specific addresses. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merge -- but leave a cat-redirect to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- 'Merge per nom; even if there is a distinction here in theory, the existing names are not sufficiently distinct as to make their intended purposes clear. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 1 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.
Category:Catholic politicians
- 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:Catholic politicians.
ℯ
xplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT that violates WP:CATEGRS. We do not create or maintain categories for every possible intersection of religion with occupation -- Catholicism is simply a denomination of Christianity, not a thing that has a WP:DEFINING impact on a person's political career in any manner different or distinct from any other Christian denomination. And regarding the potential that Catholics have a tendency to sometimes be more centrist to centre-left than other Christian denominations, well, just look who the one entry actually is if you think that's the point here. This is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of categorizing politicians. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- comment This used to be important in the USA. It has become less so, if not totally unimportant, as it became clear that Catholic politicians were not going to vote as their bishops directed them to on various key issues (e.g. abortion). In the present it doesn't seem very important, or for that matter particularly well-known, that Bush Sr. is Episcopalian while his sons are respectively Methodist (George) and Catholic (Jeb). For Al Smith and JFK it was a significant issue. That said, I don't see this surviving in its present form. Mangoe ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment JEB's (it is an acronym from his name John Ellis Bush, Sr, so it makes no sense to call him Jeb Bush), position is very much influenced by his Catholicism. The same is also very true of Rick Santorum, despite some false notions he is an Evangelical Protestant. Still it may be hard to argue for a coherent limit to the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not disputing that Jeb or Rick Santorum's politics are influenced by their status as religious conservatives — but is there any evidence that being specifically Catholic influences their politics in a manner that's distinct from if they were members of any other Christian denomination that has a socially conservative ideology? Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've added Category:Politicians of Catholic political parties as a subcat, just in case the category is kept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:37, 27 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.
Category:Panda Bear (musician)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON and numerous CfD precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are 14 articles directly related to the subject.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 09:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, 13 of which are already in standard Panda Bear related categories. The key to making this necessary isn't counting how many articles are in the subcategories — it's counting how many articles need to be filed directly in this category because there's no standard subcategorization scheme in place to categorize them as being related to Panda Bear. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Every musician does not automatically get one of these if all there is to file in it is the standard set of expected "albums category + songs category + eponym" — they get one of these only if there's an unusual volume of content that falls outside of the standard category schemes. Category:Leonard Cohen, for example, contains 17 pages that need Cohen-related categorization but can't be filed in any of the standard category schemes for musicians — and Category:Celine Dion has 20, and Category:John Lennon has 54, and on and so forth. But if all there is to file in an eponymous category is the usual albums and songs subcategories and the eponym itself, that is not grounds for an eponymous category. Basically, these are only created for the uppermost tier of musicians who are so notable and so famous that we almost literally have an article about each and every individual time they sneezed, not for every musician who exists. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 22 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.
Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players
 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2017 September 10. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 11 agreed that sorting player's biographies by the drafted/undrafted standard was not a notable characteristic. TM 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur with the July 11 discussion. Categories should be for reasons that cause subjects to be notable. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and prior discussion. For the purposes of categorization, sportspeople are not defined by whether they got into the big leagues through the annual draft or one of the other ways that exist for a person to get called up to a team outside of that process — as noted in the earlier discussion it's not rare enough to be noteworthy per se, and it doesn't make them a different class of player once they're on the team. Bearcat ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to hidden for the NBA and the NHL. Both leagues categorise their players by the team that drafted them ( NBA and NHL), so if a biography lacks a category indicating the team that drafted him, it looks like an omission. This isn't likely useful for navigation, but it could be useful for indicating (to editors and to bots) that the biography does not need to have a drafted-by category added. If other leagues have a similar set of categories that aren't in this category tree, I'd advocate keeping them and hiding them for the same reason. Since the WNBA doesn't have a drafted-by-team category tree, there's no point in having this as an error-checking category, so it might as well be deleted, but without prejudice to recreation should a drafted-by-team tree be created. Nyttend ( talk) 22:32, 22 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.
Category:St. Gallen Group
- 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 deletion per WP:G10 by User:Drmies. non admin-closure by Mangoe ( talk) 17:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: High dubious category has been created - seemingly linked to conspiracy theory. None of the individuals have themselves ever identified with belonging to such a group. Nor does it seem that such a group is notable enough in itself to require specific categorisation. Implication is to link individuals to group by association - concerns over WIKI:BLP. An article already exists to discuss the so-called St Gallen Group which is sufficient. The identification of such a group is limited to a small number of fairly minor sources. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- Yes but is it sufficient to have a separate category as well as an article as well as mention in individual articles concerning the relevant bishops? I simply don't believe there is enough substance in this to merit it. The sources you've flagged are also religious news sites - I worry that we've not had sufficient coverage in mainstream sources. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - well referenced group by reliable mainstream sources and each individual is referenced in the associated article by reliable sources also. Nomination is politically motivated by a single-topic user who, for whatever reason, is attempting to blank information related to this group. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete An informal discussion group that got a few headlines as a "secret network" for a few days. Added up to nothing. Lives on with conspiracy theorists and fringe anti-Pope Francis zealots. (See www.restkerk.net cited above.) Just not serious and not WP material at all. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion on the "group" at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group is pointing very clearly at FRINGE. This category, therefore, is a BLP violation: it categorizes living people in a group which is characterized, by hook and by crook (that is, synthesis, misreading, and selective citation of opinion pieces), as some sort of nefarious mafia-type group that perverts Catholicism. Whatever the fate of the article, the category is a violation. I note also that Claíomh Solais, the creator of the article, is plainly guilty of edit warring and of an utter lack of good faith. Oh, yes, it's a conspiracy. Drmies ( talk) 01:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: the category has been speedily deleted already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:54, 22 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.
August 21
Category:Internet Protocol addresses
- 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 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Internet Protocol addresses to Category:IP addresses
- Nominator's rationale: "IP address" is an abbreviation for "Internet Protocol address"; the scope of these two categories is identical. I'm proposing using the abbreviation, rather than the full name, because the parent article is IP address, and Internet Protocol address is simply a redirect to it. Nyttend ( talk) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Probable oppose. Category:IP addresses seems to be about the 'topic' of IP addresses; Category:Internet Protocol addresses is a list of 'specific' IP addresses, and probably needs to be a sub-category of the Category:IP addresses, and possibly a rename to highlight that. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, we probably ought to rename it to "Individual IP addresses"; see Category:Individual chickens and its parent Category:Chicken. However, that kind of thing is important with individual animals, with individual signs underneath Category:Signage, etc., but in those cases there are lots of articles in both levels of the tree, so splitting between the broad concept and the individual examples is important for size reasons. Here, we have only 37 pages between the two categories; merging won't produce a category that needs to be reduced in size. Nyttend ( talk) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Changing that to Comment. I have no strong feelings either way. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support There is no useful distinction between the topic of IP addresses and a handful of specific IP addresses. At any rate, the specific IP addresses category includes Gateway address which is not useful—it's not a specific IP address. Putting the small number of articles in one category would reduce confusion for editors and readers, and be more useful for readers. Also, the category sorting mechanism will show a clear distinction between the general theory and specific addresses. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merge -- but leave a cat-redirect to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- 'Merge per nom; even if there is a distinction here in theory, the existing names are not sufficiently distinct as to make their intended purposes clear. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 1 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.
Category:Catholic politicians
- 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:Catholic politicians.
ℯ
xplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT that violates WP:CATEGRS. We do not create or maintain categories for every possible intersection of religion with occupation -- Catholicism is simply a denomination of Christianity, not a thing that has a WP:DEFINING impact on a person's political career in any manner different or distinct from any other Christian denomination. And regarding the potential that Catholics have a tendency to sometimes be more centrist to centre-left than other Christian denominations, well, just look who the one entry actually is if you think that's the point here. This is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of categorizing politicians. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- comment This used to be important in the USA. It has become less so, if not totally unimportant, as it became clear that Catholic politicians were not going to vote as their bishops directed them to on various key issues (e.g. abortion). In the present it doesn't seem very important, or for that matter particularly well-known, that Bush Sr. is Episcopalian while his sons are respectively Methodist (George) and Catholic (Jeb). For Al Smith and JFK it was a significant issue. That said, I don't see this surviving in its present form. Mangoe ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment JEB's (it is an acronym from his name John Ellis Bush, Sr, so it makes no sense to call him Jeb Bush), position is very much influenced by his Catholicism. The same is also very true of Rick Santorum, despite some false notions he is an Evangelical Protestant. Still it may be hard to argue for a coherent limit to the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not disputing that Jeb or Rick Santorum's politics are influenced by their status as religious conservatives — but is there any evidence that being specifically Catholic influences their politics in a manner that's distinct from if they were members of any other Christian denomination that has a socially conservative ideology? Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've added Category:Politicians of Catholic political parties as a subcat, just in case the category is kept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:37, 27 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.
Category:Panda Bear (musician)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON and numerous CfD precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are 14 articles directly related to the subject.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 09:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, 13 of which are already in standard Panda Bear related categories. The key to making this necessary isn't counting how many articles are in the subcategories — it's counting how many articles need to be filed directly in this category because there's no standard subcategorization scheme in place to categorize them as being related to Panda Bear. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Every musician does not automatically get one of these if all there is to file in it is the standard set of expected "albums category + songs category + eponym" — they get one of these only if there's an unusual volume of content that falls outside of the standard category schemes. Category:Leonard Cohen, for example, contains 17 pages that need Cohen-related categorization but can't be filed in any of the standard category schemes for musicians — and Category:Celine Dion has 20, and Category:John Lennon has 54, and on and so forth. But if all there is to file in an eponymous category is the usual albums and songs subcategories and the eponym itself, that is not grounds for an eponymous category. Basically, these are only created for the uppermost tier of musicians who are so notable and so famous that we almost literally have an article about each and every individual time they sneezed, not for every musician who exists. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 22 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.
Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2017 September 10. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 11 agreed that sorting player's biographies by the drafted/undrafted standard was not a notable characteristic. TM 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur with the July 11 discussion. Categories should be for reasons that cause subjects to be notable. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and prior discussion. For the purposes of categorization, sportspeople are not defined by whether they got into the big leagues through the annual draft or one of the other ways that exist for a person to get called up to a team outside of that process — as noted in the earlier discussion it's not rare enough to be noteworthy per se, and it doesn't make them a different class of player once they're on the team. Bearcat ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to hidden for the NBA and the NHL. Both leagues categorise their players by the team that drafted them ( NBA and NHL), so if a biography lacks a category indicating the team that drafted him, it looks like an omission. This isn't likely useful for navigation, but it could be useful for indicating (to editors and to bots) that the biography does not need to have a drafted-by category added. If other leagues have a similar set of categories that aren't in this category tree, I'd advocate keeping them and hiding them for the same reason. Since the WNBA doesn't have a drafted-by-team category tree, there's no point in having this as an error-checking category, so it might as well be deleted, but without prejudice to recreation should a drafted-by-team tree be created. Nyttend ( talk) 22:32, 22 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.
Category:St. Gallen Group
- 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 deletion per WP:G10 by User:Drmies. non admin-closure by Mangoe ( talk) 17:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: High dubious category has been created - seemingly linked to conspiracy theory. None of the individuals have themselves ever identified with belonging to such a group. Nor does it seem that such a group is notable enough in itself to require specific categorisation. Implication is to link individuals to group by association - concerns over WIKI:BLP. An article already exists to discuss the so-called St Gallen Group which is sufficient. The identification of such a group is limited to a small number of fairly minor sources. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- Yes but is it sufficient to have a separate category as well as an article as well as mention in individual articles concerning the relevant bishops? I simply don't believe there is enough substance in this to merit it. The sources you've flagged are also religious news sites - I worry that we've not had sufficient coverage in mainstream sources. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - well referenced group by reliable mainstream sources and each individual is referenced in the associated article by reliable sources also. Nomination is politically motivated by a single-topic user who, for whatever reason, is attempting to blank information related to this group. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete An informal discussion group that got a few headlines as a "secret network" for a few days. Added up to nothing. Lives on with conspiracy theorists and fringe anti-Pope Francis zealots. (See www.restkerk.net cited above.) Just not serious and not WP material at all. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion on the "group" at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group is pointing very clearly at FRINGE. This category, therefore, is a BLP violation: it categorizes living people in a group which is characterized, by hook and by crook (that is, synthesis, misreading, and selective citation of opinion pieces), as some sort of nefarious mafia-type group that perverts Catholicism. Whatever the fate of the article, the category is a violation. I note also that Claíomh Solais, the creator of the article, is plainly guilty of edit warring and of an utter lack of good faith. Oh, yes, it's a conspiracy. Drmies ( talk) 01:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: the category has been speedily deleted already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:54, 22 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.