Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9

Category:Sport in the Philippines

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 all and salt top category. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Sports" is more appropriate here because the Philippines generally uses U.S. English—it was administered by the U.S. for many years. This same rename was agreed to in 2010, but it keeps getting changed speedily in apparent ignorance of this previous discussion. The main article is Sports in the Philippines. (For the same reasons, the sport categories for Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands also use "Sports".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2014 (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:Norman and Medieval London‎ + Economy of Norman and Medieval England

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 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Norman is part of Medieval anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (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:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists

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. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALLCAT. Doesn't seem there'd ever be a lot here (or at least not for quite a while) to require diffusion by nationality. Suggest upmerging to Category:Highlife albums and Category:Albums by Nigerian artists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:45, 9 September 2014 (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:Japanese Folk

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match new parent, Category:Folk culture (the creation of which was agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 16. – Fayenatic London 19:19, 9 September 2014 (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:Fractal zoom software

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as WP:SMALLCAT. Just created, along with the parent category; they each have only one member page. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 9 September 2014 (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:Mischling

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:Robertgreer § Mischlinge
Mischlinge
Are we really categorizing people according to Nazi pseudo-scientific concepts?
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Are we really categorizing people according to Nazi laws? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The people in the category appear in a list in the Mischling article (and a number of them were prominent Nazis.) — Robert Greer (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2014 (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:British courtiers

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 merge WP:C2E, keep as redirect. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category clearly created in good faith by an editor unaware of the existence of the other category, but which entirely duplicates it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (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:Philosophy maintenance categories

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. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a very unusual category with an unclear purpose (its text says "This category contains all the primary categories in which one can reasonably expect that every philosophy article would be contained. It is here to make monitoring and maintenance of articles more convenient for use in WP:AWB."). For info: There is Category:Category-Class Philosophy articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Working categories. For info: There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_28#Category:Infobox_philosopher_maintenance. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2014 (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:Wrongfully accused

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. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't know if this category should exist or not, but if it does, then surely we need to indicate that it is for people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was kind of my gut feeling too. The people in it are people who were primary suspects for a particular crime but they were never tried for the crime and it was discovered later that they were wrongfully suspected. So the category certainly fits with how it's being used; it would also certainly be open to abuse, but I don't see any signs that it has been. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete three reasons (1) we don't have alleged categories (BLP), and this is very similar, (2) "wrongfully accused" tends to imply that the accusation was wrongful - where often, like many theories and arguments made in good faith was disproved or never put to test, and (3) subjectivity of inclusion: was Lee Harvey Oswald wrongfully accused? How about George Zimmermann? certainly each was named as a "prime suspect" of something but ultimately neither was convicted of what they were "suspected" of. Best be done with the cat here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some good points here, which I think is the essence of why my gut feeling was to feel that maybe it should be deleted. As it's being used in practice, it seems to be limited to people for which the facts are much more clear cut than Oswald or Zimmermann—it's being used in instances where the investigators (or whomever the accused was) have been quite upfront that they screwed up and that the suspected person was not involved, and for those who are included right now, one of the main reasons that the person is notable is that they were wrongfully accused. However, Carlos does point out some theoretical or potential issues, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is the Category:Wrongful convictions for people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes. But people are wrongfully accused all the time, and exonerated at various points in the legal process. That's one reason there are criminal defense lawyers. Abductive (reasoning) 03:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- Too vague. This could cover people who were tried but acquitted; those whose conviction was quashed on appeal, and those who were acquitted on a technicality; but also cases where the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, though the accused had in fact done the crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (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:Hospital deaths

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 all, move selected contents of top one to new Category:Hospital scandals under Category:Medical scandals. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I found these a little bit hard to believe when I ran across them. Categorizing people because their death occurred in a hospital, or in a particular hospital? This is overcategorization. Very few people are defined by the fact that they died in a hospital or by the particular hospital that they die in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to read the category article contents which are now generally 'deaths by murder at hospitals by medical staff'--clearly a noteworthy subject, whatever category name it might carry. Hmains (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains there is no main article and the cateegory name is unclear. I'm open to a different category under a different name. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like Category:Murders in hospitals by medical staff Hmains (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2014 (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:Deaths at Auburn State Prison

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 biography pages (remove article on the prison). – Fayenatic London 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. We don't usually categorize people by the specific location of their death, whether it be a city or a building. We do categorize prisoners who died while imprisoned: see Category:People who died in prison custody. This could be simply upmerged to Category:Prisoners who died in New York detention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2014 (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:Lists of Australian Christianity

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 to Category:Australia religion-related lists and other parents or more specific sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not one of a series, so there is no "standard" naming convention to adopt, but it's basically a list category for topics related to Christianity in Australia, so I think the proposed name makes this clearer, and it matches the parent Category:Christianity in Australia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_9&oldid=1138408194"