Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent

Propose deleting Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent - Template:Lc1
Propose deleting Category:Fictional American people of Scotch-Irish descent added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional Australian people of Irish descent‎ added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional British people of Irish descent‎ added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional English people of Irish descent‎ added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional Scottish people of Irish descent‎ added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional Canadian people of Irish descent‎ added 30 March
Propose deleting Category:Fictional Ulster Scots people‎ added 30 March, this category becomes empty after deleting Category:Fictional American people of Scotch-Irish descent‎

Nominator's rationale: As explained by @Marcocapelle at this CfD, it is a non-defining characteristic often not mentioned in the article. I agree that is is a WP:TRIVIALCAT, and this detail is usually so minor that it is possibly OR. The same rationale could be applied to other categories for fictional characters by descent. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously supporting the nomination, and have also taken the liberty to add the siblings to the nomination. The siblings have the same problems indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would have no objections to listifying. Didn't see the rest f the tree pointed out below. Oppose. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Part of a huge category tree (see e.g. Category:Fictional British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin), and the nom gives no reason for singling out the Irish.

Picking on the Irish is particularly invidious, because Ireland has exported people on a huge scale since the 1840s, so the Irish diaspora massively outnumbers the population of Ireland. Fictional portrayals of the Irish disapora are a significant topic of academic study: see e.g. JSTOR search and Gscholar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also CFD 2007 October 9#Category:Fictional_Irish_people (closed as no consensus), which the nomination should have linked to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is related, Irish people is quite something different than people of Irish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. A proposal to delete Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin might or might not be reasonable, but a proposal to delete one subcat and not the others makes no sense. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I had overlooked that the problem is much bigger because Category:Fictional Irish people by ethnic or national origin is currently not a sibling of Category:Fictional British people by ethnic or national origin or Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least some -- The American, British and English subcats are well populated. Scots-Irish is ambiguous: it may refer to Ulster protestants in America or Catholic Irish in Scotland. It should be merged. The Scottish category is nearly empty and should be merged to British. Australian and Canadian could be merged into Category:Fictional people of Irish descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not about whether it is well populated, the nomination is about whether it is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining, and purely part of an author's/creator's whim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing real people by the ethnicity/nationality of their great-grandparents (I've seen at least 5 descent cats in some articles) is bad enough and categorizing fictional people in this way is even worse. It's very WP:DNWAUC. It could be argued that this should be an upmerge rather than a straight delete but the pages I looked at (example) are in so many other categories that this is probably unnecessay. DexDor^(talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @DexDor: that's a reasonable argument for deleting Category:Fictional British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin etc and all their subcats ... but it is not an argument for this proposal to single out the Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support deletion/upmerge of any descent categories (that can go back an unlimited number of generations) - for real or fictional people. In a CFD like this wherever the boundary (of which categories it covers and which it doesn't) is drawn someone could argue that the boundary is wrong - we shouldn't oppose just because of where the boundary is drawn in that particular CFD (assuming, for example, that any subcats are included). If this CFD results in delete then I would expect further (perhaps larger) CFDs to address the rest of the (fictional) descent tree - it's already in my to-do list. DexDor^(talk) 12:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DexDor: I note that you do not even try to justify this targeting of Irish-only cats. You have been around CfD for plenty long enough to know that consistency is a key principle in categorisation, and that randomly picking out one cluster of a bigger set produces inconsistent outcomes.
      If it's already in your to-do list, then there is no reason to proceed with this selective nom. Much better to have one big group nom in which a consistent principle can be applied across the board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would be neater if one cfd discussed the whole of Category:Fictional North American people of European descent and subcats, but that would be a very big cfd and even then someone could ask why, for example, Category:Fictional British people of North American descent isn't included in the nomination and the larger a cfd nomination is the more likely it is (in my experience) that some people will argue that the cfd is too big and should be opposed on that basis. DexDor^(talk) 19:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I have yet to see a CfD opposed because it is too big. Maybe because it is too diverse and combines inadequately-related sets, but not because it is too big.
        In this case the relevant starting cat is Category:Fictional people by continent and ethnic or national descent, which has only 108 subcats whose title includes the word "descent". I have listed them on the talk page at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Descent_subcats. The way to get a consistent decision on the principle is to nominate them all together. But taking them in arbitrarily-selected clumps like this is disruptive opportunism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks BHG for listing them. If this cfd was extended to cover the whole of that list would you change your !vote to delete? DexDor^(talk) 05:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I would not change my !vote. As above, fictional portrayals of the Irish disapora are a significant topic of academic study, and I have seen no evidence that situation is different for other diasporas. (It is a notable feature of this nom that those favouring deletion offer zero evidence; only assertion).
        However, if there was a consensus on all 108 categories, I could accept it as a valid consensus, unlike the selective opportunism of this nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some ancestries are more defining in fiction than others. This one is not in most cases defining and not worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Misha Arobelidze

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) 04:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Misha Arobelidze - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - this category is unlikely to get any larger Nthep (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have been emptied by an anon. BTW, the key article is listed at AfD. Grutness...wha? 09:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orders, decorations, and medals to Category:Orders, medals, and other distinctions

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps a more suitable wording for the scope. More in accordance with main article order (distinction), in turn named so for WP:NPOV reasons, with "distinction" deemed more neutral in relation to the bestower than the aesthetical value implied in the term "decoration". For a concrete example of the latter, consider this and this. While not sure if precisely "Orders, medals, and other distinctions" would be the optimal wording, other proposals are welcome. Perhaps even simply Category:Phaleristics would do (with subcategories Category:Phaleristics in X land, etc.). In any case, a discussion about the preexisting wording would be welcome - particularly regarding the term "decoration". In accordance with the result of a discussion, perhaps also a Wikipedia:DISTINCTIONS naming convention and style notice could be established. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support initial proposal. I think, for the sake of readers, "Phaleristics" might be a little too much of a half-dollar word for many, and should perhaps be reserved as a parent and for items relating to the general history of awards, medal collecting, and the like. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common usage. Gbooks gives:

Better to use the commonly accepted terminology than some Wiki-neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Procurement practices

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. The category currently has only two other specific sub-categories, not 30 as mentioned by the editor who objected, and he has not replied to the nominator's point about inclusion criteria. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Procurement practices to Category:Procurement

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. There is no advantage to merging into a category with 30 other specific subcategories, while the phrase "procurement practices" is a well-known business term about various procedures used in formal purchasing of materials. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a well-known phrase but that doesn't solve the problem. How should editors decide whether an article should be in Category:Procurement practices or in Category:Procurement? Inclusion criteria are entirely unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I can't see any criteria to distinguish between Category:Procurement practices and Category:Procurement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WikiProject Business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peers by year

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peers by year to Category:Lists of peers by decade

Nominator's rationale: because the contents are all Lists of peers by decade BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming of the categories as they currently are, though I could see the possible use of trees for Category:Peerages by year of creation and Category:Peers by year of accession to title or similar. Grutness...wha? 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The scope of the article is decades, not years. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Universal Deluxe Editions

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 03:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Universal Deluxe Editions - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A lot of albums are re-released when they reach significant anniversaries or achievement but the re-release as a "special edition" is not a defining aspect of the album itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.