Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 15 February 2019 (→Category:Sports venues in State of Jefferson region: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24

Category:Thai male triple jumpers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this one because it is new, but there are many other countries with similar SMALLCATs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sports are one of those areas where gender-based subcategorization is accepted, because men and women compete almost entirely in separate gender-specific competitions rather than directly against each other in a gender-neutral context. Accordingly, "nationality + gender sportspeople" is an overall, accepted subcategorization scheme, which is an exception that SMALLCAT explicitly allows for right in its own description of what it means. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2019 (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:Sports venues in State of Jefferson region

Nominator's rationale: WP:SYNTH violation. None of these articles mention Jefferson (proposed Pacific state). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should stay The State of Jefferson is the name for the region of Northern California and Southern Oregon that is represented by this group. The State of Jefferson is not only a proposed state but also a name used throughout the region just to refer to the area that is distinctly different than the other parts of California and Oregon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecondor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Standardized tests for Medicine

Nominator's rationale: Title is ambiguous. These are tests for doctors, not patients, and the category can be widened a little to include similar tests for other clinicians Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. RevelationDirect (talk)
This cat is currently a subcat of Category:Medical education. If it's renamed then should that change? DexDor (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants

Nominator's rationale: This category, created without discussion, appears highly controversial and in itself politically and racially biased. In addition, there is a real danger of the contents coming to include crimes that are rumoured, or reported in unreliable sources, to have been carried out by illegal immigrants when in fact they may not be. Deb (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People of all races immigrate illegally. It is a legitimate legal status, and, therefore, a legitimate addition to Category:Criminal activities by perpetrator and Category:Illegal immigration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I often create articles about notable crimes. Deb often argues to delete them at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you double-check, you'll find that this is not the case. It's true we often disagree about deletions, but I'm not aware of having argued for the deletion of any articles you have created. Deb (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote,or meant to write, is that you often argue to delete notable crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of categories job is to enable people to locate information on significant topics. It is a fact that illegal immigration is among the most significant topics of public conversation in much of the world, at least, in much of what used to be called the free world: India, South Africa, Europe, and the U.S. are among the countries with large inflows of illegal immigrants. Our obligation is not to decide whether this is a good conversation to be having. Our obligation is to make certain that the information we provide on significant [political topics is accurate and that it is linked in a way that makes it possible for people to find it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unrelated intersection. All sorts of people commit crimes, there is no reason to isolate illegal immigrants among them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unrelated intersection, per Marcocapelle. (a) there was a crime; (b) the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It doesn't follow that the 2 facts are related. Oculi (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument really is that media attention and illegal immigration are related, rather than crime and illegal immigration. We can't categorize by anything that media have disproportionate attention for (that would require us to have a measure of disproportionality, leading to all sorts of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issues). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Illegal immigration -- I generally prefer to use the term "non-legal immigration" -- is a hugely vexing issue, primarily because it has become so polarized. People on both sides have staked out extreme, simplistic positions, with some trying to turn it into a complete "non-issue" and others blowing it out of all proportion, in particular by fear/hate-mongering about terrible crimes that have been committed by illegal/non-legal immigrants.
And make no mistake, these are terrible crimes. The killing of police officer Ronil Singh -- a Fijian immigrant to California -- struck very close to home, as a good friend of ours was his teacher at community college. The alleged killer was an illegal immigrant, as were several of his friends who have been charged as accomplices for trying to help him escape to Mexico. At the same time, it's also the case that this murder was seized on and shamelessly exploited by Donald Trump to get support for his border wall. (The same way the (accidental) shooting of Kate Steinle was exploited by Trump and a host of other people.)
In short, regardless of how one feels about this whole subject, the fact remains that it receives a great deal of attention from the media and the public at large. Which leaves us with the question of What is the proper way to deal with it on Wikipedia? It can't and shouldn't be hidden away -- but it also shouldn't be given excessive prominence. After racking my brain for a more acceptable category name -- one that would have any real likelihood of gaining support here -- I have reluctantly given up, in favor of a different solution. (see below, shortly) Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator's rationale is not particularly convincing: "itself politically and racially biased". Nothing in the category mentions the racial backgrounds of either victims or perpetrators, and we are not supposed to sanitize crime-related articles to fit anyone's political agenda. If the sources support an article belonging in this category, it should be added. If the perperator is unknown, disputed, etc, then the article should be removed. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That the sources in articles would support a category is a necessary condition for a category to exist, but doesn't mean the category is necessary. DexDor (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through the 'Crime' Category, we currently have, "Crimes against women, (but not men!), Crimes against Law enforcement, War crimes, Crimes involving Satanism, Crimes in religion, Political crimes, police brutality, crimes against banks, children (but not the elderly!) and humanity. I'd say any of these would fall under POV. I don't see how we can maintain that it's not POV to have a category for crimes against women (but not men), and also argue that crimes committed by illegal immigrants would be POV. We seem pretty comfortable with a lot of POV categories here, when the status of the victim is considered to be significant. No difference here. Personally, I think the entire category should restrict itself to factual categories, what types of crime was committed. All the rest is POV and really shouldn't be in here. Yes, that includes 'war crimes'. I'm going to say keep here, because it touches on a controversial issue. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a person overstays his tourist visa by one day, and during that day drives drunk and kills someone, is this a valid category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijabophobia

Nominator's rationale: I'm afraid I see issues with the application of this category. PPEMES (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian feminists

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge for more clarity, the category is apparently meant to collect those who are involved in Christian feminism but because of the current category's name it also attracts biographies of feminists who coincidentally happen to be Christian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sensible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite right, very sound analysis. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree. Deb (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bismarck monuments

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 (WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 24 January 2019 (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:Diana, Princess of Wales memorials

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 (WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 24 January 2019 (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:John F. Kennedy memorials

Nominator's rationale: One of just 3 out of 95 categories in Category:Monuments and memorials by person to use this form. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_24&oldid=883369439"