Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Organisations based in Iraq[edit]

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 as needed, to "organizations" (option A). MER-C 09:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations" (rename 21)

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations" (rename 10)

User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey. Oculi (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A, use z - the status quo would be Option B, following Category:Organisations based in Iraq. I am however unaware of any compelling reason to use 'organisation' for Iraq rather than the more widely accepted 'organization'. Oculi (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A, use z Arguments about local variants of English spelling dont apply in countries where English is not used. Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer z, since z is acceptable in both British English and American English. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 23 June 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.

Binghamton Crickets[edit]

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; the arguments against it seem to be misunderstandings and have been refuted. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Binghamton Cricket players to Category:Binghamton Crickets (1870s) players
Propose renaming Category:Binghamton Crickets players to Category:Binghamton Crickets (1880s) players

Nominator's rationale: This grows out of a discussion at WP:RDE; see "19th-century minor league baseball" in the revision current as of nomination. In short, the 1870s team wore uniforms saying "Cricket" but were commonly known as "Crickets", so it should be at "Binghamton Crickets" as well, and thus we need to disambiguate. Neither team has an article. Also, please note that the discussion demonstrates that these two are indeed treated as separate teams; we shouldn't just merge them into a single category. I've proposed a naming format similar to Category:Washington Senators (1901–60) players and Category:Washington Senators (1891–99) players, although as the years these teams played may be a bit uncertain, I thought it would be wiser to use just the decades of their main activity, rather than a range of years. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with your proposal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs was a participant in the WP:RDE discussion, and some of my nomination statement depends on what he found in some paywalled sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain they are separate, but I do think that combining them would need more evidence of linkage than I have seen. Support proposal as written. --Khajidha (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose splitting -- The change of name for the team is not enough to merit a split: one franchise: one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence, so far, that the two teams are the same franchise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, they are currently covered in two categories and would continue to be covered in two categories, so I can't understand what "split" you are talking about. --Khajidha (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. They're already split. The renaming is just for better clarity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also also, Peterkingiron, they appear not to have changed their name. You can propose merging the existing categories if you want (before the WP:RDE discussion, I was planning to propose that), but unless someone proposes it, we'll definitely be retaining the current separate categories under some name-combination or another. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Peterkingiron: That's not true. Just one example- There is both a category for both Lakeland Tigers players and Lakeland Flying Tigers players....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:09, 22 June 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:Sinéad O'Connor[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sinéad O'Connor to Category:Works by Sinéad O'Connor

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, this does not satisfy the criteria for an eponymous category, but would work well in the "works by" category tree. --wooden superman 11:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have had thousands of musician cfds like this one which have been 'keep' with 3 subcats, delete with 1 and various with 2. 'Works' has so far been reserved for more substantial efforts than popular music. Pick some particular branch of a non-musician tree and prune it in a systematic fashion rather than bringing random odds and ends to cfd. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of the articles and subcategories relate to her works, therefore this is much better suited to the works category tree. There is no justification for an eponymous category in this case, as there are no appropriate non-works articles to put in it. Something like ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Michael Brook or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Thom Yorke are decent parallels. See ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by filmmaker or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by writer to see how the "works" tree can be correctly and effectively implemented. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by musician should aim to be as good as those. --wooden superman 08:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this isn't renamed, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Sinéad O'Connor should still be created so that it can sit properly in the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Irish musicians category (and thus the whole ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Irish people tree), which would leave the eponymous category redundant. --wooden superman 08:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by Irish musicians was created (needlessly) by Woodensuperman. Oculi (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but should we use the latest name that's she has dreamed up? Poor troubled soul. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. "Works by" categories should be used for those who cross platforms with their creativity (authors, filmmakers, musicians, video game designers, visual artists). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Look at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by American filmmakers, where the majority of them are only known for the platform of film. Or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Works by English writers, where most of them are only known for writing. And we certainly shouldn't be giving preference to an eponymous category over a works category per WP:OCEPON. --wooden superman 08:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there is no objective reason to restrict the Works tree to cross platform applications; cross category should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the discussion? The other "keep" !votes have been rebuffed. --wooden superman 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL nothing has been "rebuffed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:21, 2 July 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:5th-century French people[edit]

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/rename as nominated, any further changes should be proposed in new nominations. MER-C 09:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:5th-century French people to Category:5th-century Gallo-Roman people
Propose renaming Category:5th-century French women to Category:5th-century Gallo-Roman women

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, French people did not exist yet in the 5th century, the best contemporary descriptor is Gallo-Roman. Disclosure: I created the target recently. I haven't included the 6th and the 7th century in this nomination because those are more complicated (they do not obviously have a Gallo-Roman target). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of the people in this category are Celtic Britons which colonized Brittany.: "Toward the end of the 4th century, the Britons of what is now Wales and the South-Western peninsula of Great Britain began to emigrate to Armorica. The history behind such an establishment is unclear, but medieval Breton, Angevin and Welsh sources connect it to a figure known as Conan Meriadoc. Welsh literary sources assert that Conan came to Armorica on the orders of the Roman usurper Magnus Maximus,... expelled from Lower Brittany by Conan on Magnus's orders. Regardless of the truth of this story, Brythonic (British Celtic) settlement probably increased during the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries. Scholars such as Léon Fleuriot have suggested a two-wave model of migration from Britain which saw the emergence of an independent Breton people and established the dominance of the Brythonic Breton language in Armorica. Their petty kingdoms are now known by the names of the French counties that succeeded them—Domnonée (Devon), Cornouaille (Cornwall), Léon (Caerleon); but these names in Breton and Latin are in most cases identical to their British homelands. (In Breton and French, however, Gwened or Vannetais continued the name of the indigenous Veneti.) Although the details remain confused, these colonies consisted of related and intermarried dynasties which repeatedly unified (as by the 7th-century Saint Judicaël) before splintering again according to Celtic inheritance practices. The area was finally consolidated in the 840s under Nominoe in resistance to Frankish control. Among the immigrant Britons, there were some clergymen who helped the evangelisation of the region, which was still pagan, particularly in rural areas." Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I haven't included the 6th and the 7th century in this nomination because those are more complicated (they do not obviously have a Gallo-Roman target)" We already had a category about 6th century Gallo-Romans, and I created one for 7th-century Gallo-Romans, though by that time their culture was in decline. As noted in the main article Gallo-Roman culture:

"Into the seventh century, Gallo-Roman culture would persist particularly in the areas of Gallia Narbonensis that developed into Occitania, Cisalpine Gaul, Orléanais, and to a lesser degree, Gallia Aquitania. The formerly Romanized north of Gaul, once it had been occupied by the Franks, would develop into Merovingian culture instead.... Gallo-Roman language persisted in the northeast into the Silva Carbonaria that formed an effective cultural barrier with the Franks to the north and east, and in the northwest to the lower valley of the Loire, where Gallo-Roman culture interfaced with Frankish culture in a city like Tours and in the person of that Gallo-Roman bishop confronted with Merovingian royals, Gregory of Tours."

Gallo-Romans were one of the ethnicities in Francia (481–843): "Throughout the Frankish kingdoms there continued to be Gallo-Romans subject to Roman law and clergy subject to canon law. " Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that background explanation. Do you have any ideas how we can dissolve the nominated category? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We could merge them to a parent category Category:5th-century European people. Dimadick (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then I suggest we move Celtic Britons to Category:5th-century European people and other articles to Category:5th-century Gallo-Roman people. Most probably the same solution will apply to the 6th and 7th century, except perhaps we should move some articles to Frankish categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this but I agree that's it's going to be a real pickle for the Dark Ages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Initially the Franks were an elite who invaded and imposed themselves. I am sure I have heard of Gallo-Romans who found themselves with Franks who had moved into part of their mansion (villa?). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:05, 22 June 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:The Disciples of Apocalypse[edit]

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. MER-C 09:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Disciples of Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 pages, none will be added. Category is not needed Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't believe number of articles in a category is a measure of its importance. The Disciples of Apocalypse as a stable was active for two years, similar to the Nation of Domination which has a category of its own. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The Disciples of Apocalypse members per most of Category:WWE teams and stables. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oculi, That I can do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Since when are categories based on how long a stable has been together? Number of articles is a key factor in whether or not there should be a category. I think you are confusing WP:N for articles with categories. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: If the number of articles is the only factor then why Blue World Order CAT is still here with only 6 entries and Road Warriors with only 9 entries? Obviously WP:N is relevant. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: No, WP:N deals with notability of articles, not categories. Typically categories with under 5 pages are not created, regardless of how long the topic existed for. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep something. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Point me to a policy/consensus/guideline which says categories with less than 5 entries should not be created. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I suggest you read WP:OVERCAT, but WP:SMALLCAT would be a good starting point. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Actually I was asking you to point me to a consensus or policy which "explicitly" mentions that any cat with less than "5 entries" should not be created.

Now, WP:SMALLCAT writes, Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme,.... Point is -

How much is "few members"? A rather vague statement. I can very well consider 6 entries in The Blue World Order members (only 2 more than DoA) to be "few members" and tag it for deletion. And Category:The Road Warriors members also has only 9 entries.
The above guideline is also exempt from sub-categorization and The Disciples of Apocalypse is a Sub-CAT of WWE teams and stables.

Having said that, I'll stand by my words. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of categories with 1 article; look eg in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Albums by artist, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Novels by writer etc. Or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Musicians by band (where 1 is insufficient, 2 is borderline but 3 is fine), which may be relevant. Oculi (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Yes, but those are specific exceptions in WP:SMALLCAT, this is not a common place category. If you look at Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables there are hundred of articles but very few categories for them. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, although the guideline is imprecise a minimum of 5 is used in practice a lot. A cut-off like 5 makes perfect sense to the extent that an article will mention ~4 members in one the opening sentences of the article, while ~10 members would be too many to mention in a opening sentence. In addition, the SMALLCAT exception does not apply, per Galatz. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How? WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to Sub-CATSs as per its policy. I wonder how The Blue World Order members is totally OK which has only 2 more entries than The Disciples of Apocalypse. I really wish we had a guideline explicitly mentioning there need to be atleast 5 entries for a CAT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMALLCAT does not apply when there is a full diffusion scheme being applied, e.g. by nationality. That is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:02, 22 June 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:The Office (UK TV series) episodes[edit]

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 Category:The Office (British TV series) episodes (the new name for the nominated category) to Category:The Office (British TV series). MER-C 10:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Office (UK TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains two articles: the main episode list and an article about the Christmas specials. No other episodes have articles. It could very easily be restored if more episode-articles are ever created. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Category:The Office. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good solution. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:The Office (UK TV series) and add The Office (UK TV series), David Brent: Life on the Road and other random articles in Category:The Office that belong to it. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, both alternative options (merge back and rename) are improvements over the current structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there weren't a list article, I would say listify, as a list article would be better for listing episodes, due to there not being any articles on the individual episodes. Individual episodes are usually not notable enough for articles, unless they receive significant attention, such as Dennō Senshi Porygon. Since there are no episodes of this show that are notable enough, I'd say this category should be deleted. Invalid^OS (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@InvalidOS: presumably your delete is meant as merge to Category:The Office, is that right? There is no reason to withdraw the articles from the tree of Category:The Office. 05:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Re-purpose per Gonnym, although given the recent change in naming convention, believe this should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The Office (British TV series). --wooden superman 10:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, British is the correct name per NCTV's recent change. --Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 7 July 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:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee[edit]

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:Members of the Fabian Society. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hard to see when this has ever been a defining characteristic of anyone. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google Books search find plenty of people for whom this is listed in a short biography, suggesting that it is defining for them. Also turns up repeatedly in Who's Who/Who Was Who entries, which are generally brief and include little more than defining characteristics. Warofdreams talk 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think inclusion in a short biography demonstrates that something meets WP:CATDEF. A defining characteristic, the text at CATDEF implies, is something in the first sentence or two of a short biography. I looked at a quasi-random sampling of people in this category:

- These didn't even mention the Fabians in the lede: Colin Jackson (politician), Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence, John Cartwright (British politician), Denis Healey, Henry Slesser, Samuel Kerkham Ratcliffe, Leo Chiozza Money, Ellie Levenson
- Mentioned the Fabians, but not exec cttee membership: Hubert Bland (opening sentence of lede notes he was one of the founders of the Fabians), Barbara Drake (describes her as a Fabian, but the article text never mentions the exec cttee)
- Mentioned exec cttee in lede (sort of): Isabel Priestley (only a stub with three short paragraphs, and her membership is mentioned in the second paragraph), Ambrose Appelbe (stub with four paragraphs, membership is mentioned in the third) Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Fabians are not mentioned in the ledes is not terribly significant. Membership of the Executive Committee was more important for some of these people than others, and its defining importance in the early lives of some was eclipsed by later achievements. Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For whom is it a defining characteristic? It's still a secondary characteristic for, e.g., Isabel Priestley and Ambrose Appelbe. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) @Rathfelder, that is a broader problem with WP:DEFINING. Attribute X may represent the pinnacle of the career of person A, but they may have served alongside Person B who did so much else at a higher level that X is a mere footnote in their life. In such cases we have to make a judgement on X's definingness across the set as a whole. In this case I agree that being on the Fabian Exec was defining for most, even for Denis Healey. But other cases are much less clearcut, and the philosophical problem is irresoluble within our current framework. In an ideal world, we might able to rank the categories applied to each article, so that readers could choose to view only the most defining, but the software doesn't allow it and we haven't enough editors to do it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BrownHairedGirl's description of the fundamental philosophical problem that a category may be defining for some people, but not others. I think the approach one has to take is on an article by article basis. For this person, a particular category is not defining and should not be added. For that person, it is and it should be.

This leaves us with some categories that might apply to a lot of people, but which are actually defining for only a few articles. I see a lot of school alumni categories that rarely seem defining, so I chop them from articles, but I can see they might be in certain situations.

In this particular case, however, while I can see that being a Fabian may meet DEFCAT, and we have a category for that, I struggle to see that this category, "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee‎", or indeed a related category, "Treasurers of the Fabian Society‎", are ever defining. The broader category of being a member of the Fabians seems sufficient. It's WP:OC to split that into 5 sub-categories ("Chairs of...", "General Secretaries of...", "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee‎", "Presidents of..." and "Treasurers of..."). Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have proposed upmerger, not deletion, shouldn't I? Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if Fabian Society Executive Committee is not mentioned in an article then the category should be removed. (Editors should not be 'chopping' school alumni categories from articles (assuming the school is mentioned and preferably sourced). I think (in practice) we categorize by defining characteristics and also a list of factoids - year of birth, death, place person is from, school, university + a few others.) Oculi (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in practice, we should follow agreed guidelines (WP:NONDEF), which are that we categorise by defining characteristics only. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of categories which are defining for some of the members, but not for others. Sometimes they reveal interesting connections which have not been generally noticed. I think we should keep them if they are significant for a reasonable number. I dont see much harm done if that means some people appear in categories which, as far as they are concerned, are not really defining. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is that we would be acting against an editing guideline in WP:NONDEF. Have a debate and change the guideline if you like, but I think it's unhelpful to try a backdoor subversion of an agreed guideline. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that especially with biographies we should strictly keep to WP:DEFINING since biography articles too often contain a huge list of categories already, so that nobody can see the wood for the trees, which just undermines the usefulness of the category system. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Principle/Upmerge to Category:Members of the Fabian Society. While these people do seem definined by their socialism and that is often intertwined with their Fabian Society activities, the couple hundred people in this category (of which I clicked on like 20) don't seem defined by what appears to be a volunteer stint in this executive role. (We have a parent category for any member though which is not nominated so I don't favor a straight deletion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining for the people so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is whether membership of the executive was, for a reasonable proportion of these people, more defining than just being a member of the society. I'd be surprised if that were true. Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:01, 22 June 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:Venezuela solidarity activists[edit]

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 09:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Venezuela solidarity activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:NPOV concerns. The name is too ambiguous to know precisely what it means, and less than half of the articles mention Venezuela in their content. Most of the articles consist in British politicians, suggesting that they are members of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, but there are also non-British people such as Harry Belafonte, Deborah James, Nikolas Kozloff, Daniel Kovalik and Gregory Wilpert, which again brings a problem of original research. Jamez42 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This term has been around since the Hugo Chavez era and its meaning has remained fundamentally the same: solidarity with the duly-elected (i.e. legitimate) government of Venezuela AND opposition to US intervention. It's certainly NOT an issue of "original research" - that is a totally ludicrous assertion. I just checked all 5 of the US articles you listed, and every single one of them has clear, well-sourced content, usually under a section heading.

The reason most of the articles currently listed are British politicians is undoubtedly because the category was created by a British editor, presumably more familiar with the scene in the UK. But there are plenty of Venezuela solidarity activists here in the US (in the news recently as "Embassy Protectors"), and it seems there are also a goodly number in Australia.

As for any articles that don't mention Venezuela in their content, the standard/basic rules apply: ideally, the editor/s who added the category to those articles (or anyone else who cares to) should also see to it that sourced info is added in order to support inclusion; if that doesn't happen, those articles can be removed from the category. PS - I will try to find time to add some of the other US people some time later today. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have taken the liberty to remove the articles that don't mention Venezuela in their content. I have failed to find use of the term besides in the context of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, both in and outside Wikipedia. The issue with the original research is the term and the categorization, not the content of the articles per se. In any case, this definition seems to fit either with support of the Bolivarian Revolution or the ruling party, and the . This is one of the reasons why the term "Venezuela solidarity" is problematic and lacks neutrality. For instance, which would be the differences with the category Venezuelan democracy activists? Opposition to the economic crisis or human rights violations? The category is both ambiguous and broad, and a name such as "Bolivarian Revolution supporters" would be more suitable. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, mostly personalities that are not notable inside Venezuela. The category follows and criteria that is not precise and seems WP:ORIGINAL.--MaoGo (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it would have to be linked to Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (or other groups) to be easily defined as a category, with the ambiguity of solidarity in individuals' statements/actions/beliefs compared to the stated manifestos of groups — and at that point, it makes more sense to just have a "Venezuela Solidarity Campaign members" category, especially for readers who are unaware of the implications of the term and may confuse a simple assertion of "solidarity" as being supportive of the opposition, government, peace, or something else. Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 23 June 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.