Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 12

< July 11 July 13 >

July 12

Category:New Generation Cooperatives

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. ℯxplicit 03:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, which don't seem to have much to distinguish them from other categorisations of coops. No article on the topic. I suspect there are many co-ops which have adaptated "traditional cooperative structures", but I don't see that they need a separate category, when we dont have a category for traditional cooperatives. Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 12 July 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:Male computer scientists

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator rationale - Per WP:CATGENDER and previous discussions, such as Category by gender and Categories by gender: gender has no specific relation to the topic. Place Clichy (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back (also any female categories). Programming is not sex-segregated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to nominate any female category in a new discussion. However in my understanding, it is community practice, reflected in the WP:CATGENDER guideline, to allow gender-specific categories not balanced directly against an opposite-gender category, when historically the vast majority of a function has been associated with a specific gender. This most often makes gender balancing in this function, or the progress of the minority gender in this function, a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Place Clichy (talk) 15:42, 18 July 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:Fraternities

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, no action required. (Message me if you think I have misunderstood the consensus.) – Fayenatic London 22:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To include both fraternities and sororities‎. If there is to be a hierarchy - and I dont think its needed - the more inclusive category should be at the top Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to throw in that it is messier than this. (Not sure how to add this discussion to WP:FRAT). Fraternities and Sororities as a *group* term, (especially capitalized) referring to the Greek Letter Organization system which descends from Phi Beta Kappa in concept to include the Social, Honorary, and professional Collegiate groups as well as some related spinoffs (not all of them using Greek Letters see, for example, FarmHouse. and Sorority as a category would certainly be a subcategory since the only use of an organization calling itself a sorority comes off of that concept in the 1880s. However Fraternity is a considerably broader concept than just collegiate organizations mostly derived from Phi Beta Kappa, so in that regard, Sorority would be a subcat of Fraternities and Sororities and *that* would be a subcat of Fraternities. USA doesn't really help as a dab term since a group number of them are outside the USA, Collegiate might be better, but somewhat inaccurate (a few groups formed using Greek Letters where specifically designed to be professional only)Naraht (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am having mixed feelings about keeping a separate subcat for sororities and not for collegiate fraternities. while most content inFraternities and sororities is common, some is exclusive to either fraternities and sororities:
Place Clichy (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fraternity coats of arms images is definitely well mixed and includes social fraternities, social sororities, professional fraternities (some of which are co-ed) and I think an honor society or two. Think of it as pre-merged. :)Naraht (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Category:Fraternity coats of arms images for speedy renaming to follow the category structure. I also found Category:Christian sororities and Category:Christian fraternities, which have specific content to one type of organization. I'm adding them to the list above. Place Clichy (talk) 13:30, 24 July 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:Italian goalkeepers

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization, Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers already exist as the categories, which is common practice. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:04, 12 July 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:Fraternal service organizations

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: split, merging to Category:Mutual organizations except those that are currently in the tree of Category:Fraternal orders. Note 1: For the record, some history of this category is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_9#Category:Fraternal_and_service_organizations. Note 2: I will merge the interwiki links to the Wikidata page for Category:Fraternal orders, as this seem a better fit than the one for Mutual orgs, and has no clashes. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undefined intermediate category. There is actually no article Fraternal service organizations. There is Category:Fraternities and some of the articles might better there. There are enough articles to subcategorise them by country, but I'm not sure whether that would be better done using Category:Fraternities and sororities by country Rathfelder (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the definition of "mutual organizations" (helping our members) and "service organizations" (serving a wider community) would appear to be incompatible but in application appear congruent. Mutual organizations, we are told, are organizations for mutual benefit of their members, and "exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide". Examples given are finance and insurance. However, presumably, nearly every organization without an overriding altruistic bent could fall into such a definition. While we have no article Fraternal service organizations, we can find its contours from some examples in the category: Freemasonry, various religious organizations, Apartheid organizations like Afrikaner Broederbond, and such. While one could argue that these fraternal service organizations have an overriding altruistic bent differentiating them from mutual organizations, I think it stretches credulity to impart such altruism to freemasons, religious organizations, and ethno-political ones such as find themselves categorized here. We also have Category:Charities which should contain the purely altruistic organizations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the main article is Benefit society so an alternative could be to rename the category to Category:Benefit societies but I am not sure if the difference between benefit societies and mutual organizations is sufficiently clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, I presume (when reading the rationale) that the nomination should actually be read as "split" rather than "merge", because a number of articles (when scrolling through the articles I believe a pretty large number of articles) should be moved to Category:Fraternities or to some of its other subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to sort the articles into appropriate sub categories, but I am puzzled to work out exactly how Fraternal service organizations are to be distinguished from Mutual organizations. Many are clearly Fraternal orders, and they clearly have distinguishing characteristics, and have been unnecessarily overcategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 13 July 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:Certified albums in Romania

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. Timrollpickering 09:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedence over the years these categories are considered redundant and have been deleted. —IB [ Poke ] 06:27, 12 July 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:Far-right politicians in India

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. I will create Category:Far-right politicians by nationality as a container to hold these along with the British and Norwegian categories pending possible further discussions. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR, against standard and inaccurate category. Sources don't describe the added politicians as "far-right". Though some of them are associated with a far-right political group, but for that you have Category:Far-right politics in India, just like for the US you have Far-right politics in the United States‎ but not Category:Far-right politicians in the United States. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have taken the liberty to merge the two discussions, and to add another two (Irish and NI) nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have any evidence that the sources do not refer to the various Indian people as far-right politicians? The RSS, VHP and other Hindutva-type groups most definitely are described as far-right, fascist etc, so one would imagine that people who are officials in those groups must be. And, even if you are correct, is there any reason for not proposing a merge with Category:Far-right politics in India rather than delete? - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had nominated [2] and [3] for deletion. Other two were added by Marcocapelle. I cant see any sources defining Yogi Adityanath or Pierre Lagaillarde as a "far-right politician", but he is associated with a far-right group. This is why I had mentioned some of the individuals being "associated with a far-right political group". Categories under this title are only 4 compared to 43 of the "Far-right politics".[4] I thought deletion is better because existence of such category names will encourage creation of more similar categories. I am not opposed to replacing the category, in fact I was going to replace them already before starting this CFD but policies on CFD forbids it. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When none of those sources describe them as "far-right", it is WP:OR. Also see deletion of a similar category before. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many individuals in the parent categories of these, thus the problem remains - if a problem there is. Like "liberal", "conservative", "socialist", and any political label, there is an inherent problem in naming which would probably be better handled by labelling by party name but inevitably some general categorization of such parties would roll up. Moreover, meanings differ in different jurisdictions: a Republican in the US and a Republican in the UK have quite different agendas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but transform into Diffusion-only categories. These categories are useful and the topic is notable, but placing individual biographic articles brings a lot of problems: the label is often pejorative, the definition of far-right varies greatly with country and period of time etc. Seeing that Michel Poniatowski (a pillar of Giscard's center-right party UDF) has been labelled as far-right politician since 2007 shows of how wrongful inclusions to these categories can easily appear. Therefore I believe that only specific subcategories (e.g. politicians by party) should be allowed and not individual articles. In that I agree with @Marcocapelle:'s comment. Place Clichy (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Category:English far-right politicians, and a Scottish one, but that only these few countries have such a category shows there is a problem. Where is the US, Germany, Pakistan, etc etc? A less POV term is needed. I don't think just adding parties works - Fine Gael, which governs Ireland about half the time, is by no stretch a far- or hard-right party, but the Irish category shows it has harboured and promoted some very far-right types over the years. Many other "centre-right" parties acrross the world show the same. Some form of "nationalist" might work. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 25 July 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.