Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17

Category:Wikipedians against Force Thirteen

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. MER-C 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates Wikipedia:User categories#advocacy * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 17 November 2020 (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:Rugby league players that played in the NFL

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) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. This is a trivial intersection. User:Namiba 15:43, 17 November 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Hungary

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. MER-C 19:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per other CfDs, a "landmark" is subjective. While it's part of a generally accepted structure it's also only got one entry which is already in the appropriately diffused categories (Demolished buildings and structures in Hungary and Buildings and structures demolished in #year). SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 17 November 2020 (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.

Template:China-geo-stub

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: redirect to {{PRChina-geo-stub}}. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deprecated stub template with 0 transclusions [1]. Opalzukor (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this had been redirected to {{PRChina-geo-stub}} years ago! Deletion or redirection would both work. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not be deleted, as the name follows a standard format which editors are likely to use again. IMHO it was useful to keep it as a deprecated stub,[2] as this then gives instructions about the alternatives available. However, redirecting might be better now, as "China" is widely used and understood as PRC in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With stub types, "China" is supposed to only be used for stubs which cover the entirety of "historic China", i.e., both the PRC and Taiwan (e.g., {{China-hist-stub}}) - it looks like quite a few stub types have slipped through over the years using it only for the mainland, though. Given that geography articles are about specific locations, there's no point in having a similar {{China-geo-stub}}. And yes, FL, I did defend it as deprecated... ten years ago. That was done because some editors were still using it and probably would for some time. ISTR that old stub types were usually deprecated for a year or so and then deleted. No idea why that didn't happen to this one. In any case, it's unused, and there's been no apparent use of it for years. Truth be told, this one probably dates from an ongoing series of edit-wars with a long-since banned editor whose username eludes me, who was intent on using "China" to mean Taiwan on all templates and categories (User:ChickenNoodles maybe? Something like that, I think). Grutness...wha? 12:05, 19 November 2020 (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:History of medieval Islam

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) 00:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer, currently only contains Events in medieval Islam (and perhaps that one should be nominated too). – Fayenatic London 11:08, 17 November 2020 (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:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals

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: there is consensus that a rename to something is appropriate. Category:Activists for victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church got the most support, so we will go with that. It could be re-nominated for renaming if anyone can come up with something better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First of all, per WP:CATV I could right now be completely justified in reducing this cat to 1 article. In the eight others, nowhere does the word "pedophil*" appear, and you'd be hard-pressed to find sources.

Secondly, "pedophile" is a highly charged, sensationalistic, inaccurate term for a child sexual abuser. It is not often used in the reliable sources, certainly nobody medical or psychological would use it for priests who abused chiefly adolescents. WP:NPOV demands that we neutralize this label wherever it can be found inaccurate.

Thirdly, the proposed name casts a wider net, which is nice, and can encompass more than the narrow label currently assigned hereon. Elizium23 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are paedophiles in the Catholic Church, that's well evidenced, and there are activists against such people and their continued involvement with an institution that still somehow tries to claim some semblance of moral authority. The claim that such "paedophiles" ought not to be so named because to do so is highly charged, sensationalistic, inaccurate is hilarious special pleading originating from a clearly biased and self-exculpatory viewpoint within the church itself. Strong oppose. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, okay, so you don't oppose sexual abuse of adolescents, and neither do the members of this category? Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elizium23: I'll ignore your crass personal attack on me. It's not just sexual abuse of adolescents I oppose, but all abuse systematically perpetrated and covered up by the Catholic Church, against all ages. Paedophilia in the Catholic Church is only a small subset of the vast child abuse for which the Church and its members are guilt and in which they are complicit. As a consequence, this category should sit within a larger category of Category:Anti-abuse activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals. Not all of the Catholic Church's abusers are paedophiles, but all the Church's many paedophile are all abusers. GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, this cat is not here to WP:RGW as you wish, but to describe reality, and it fails in describing that reality. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, I will remind you that 8 of 9 articles are unsourced and I will be reducing this cat to 1 article if it is allowed to stand at this name. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2020 (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:BEJ48

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. I'll leave the decision to others on whether to add Category:BEJ48 members to Category:SNH48 Group.' Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single subcategory. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:54, 17 November 2020 (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:Figures of UPA

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
Both of these categories contain only 1 article and it is the same article: Nil Khasevych.
Mr. Khasevych is notable for being a WWII military leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). The first category is the Ukrainian acronym for the same organization, Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya (UPA) and, as used here, is redundant. The second category is for the Cross of Merit (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), an obscure award from the UIA/UPA. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 article but it is now linked right here in the main article. Clearly, neither category aids navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2020 (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:Places named after Yasser Arafat‎

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. MER-C 19:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DEFINING (WP:SHAREDNAME)
This category is for places named after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and currently has 3 articles. They are Martyr Yasser Arafat Governmental Hospital, Yasser Arafat Cup and Yasser Arafat International Airport which have nothing in common other than the name which is classic WP:SHAREDNAME. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article with a redirect. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (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/2020_November_17&oldid=1138412392"