From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 119.95.55.46

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) 22:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category established in violation of WP:HSOCK. No evidence of blocks, SPI, or socking presented. GregJackP  Boomer! 17:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. ...William 16:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and as an empty category. —   dain omite   09:24, 10 October 2013 (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:Jewish serial killers

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 deletion under G4, as a recreation of a category that was recently deleted after a CfD discussion.. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATEGRS, "do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic".
I see no evidence of any such relevance here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable sources to show that Jewish serial killers serially kill different than non-Jewish serial killers. Hence, per WP:CATEGRS, this cat is improper. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no source that supports these as a distinct group, as opposed to just a trivial intersection. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rude comment. I'm just noting in passing that this was created just a few days after I deleted Category:American serial killers of Jewish descent at this CFD, and the articles in the new nominated category are the same as those that were in the deleted category. This is not kind or civil, but I am tired of nut-jobs doing this type of end-run around decisions that are made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • speedy delete per WP:EGRS. Can someone close this? A recent consensus already deleted this category.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have deleted this cat under CSDG4. I am not over familiar with the administration of category closures and its arguably a COI if I act to do so. Ben Mac Dui 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I asked a non-involved administrator who closes CFDs to take care of this one. In the meantime I will remove the since deleted category from the pages that have categorized for it. ...William 19:06, 5 October 2013 (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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.172.99.234

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) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created in violation of WP:HSOCK, no blocks, no SPI, no evidence of socking. GregJackP  Boomer! 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. ...William 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —   dain omite   09:24, 10 October 2013 (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:Democratic socialist parties

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 L ondon 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: 'Democratic socialist', 'Socialist' and 'social democrat' are terms used interchangeably. Their is a difference in connotation between DS and SD, but it is more indicative of national political contexts than a difference between parties. The current category contains some parties that would fit well into Category:Social democratic parties (like Socialist Forces Front, Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas, Progressive Socialist Party), and some parties (like The Left (Germany), Socialist Party (Netherlands)) that would fit better in Category:Socialist parties, and some parties that fit in neither ( Republican Left of Catalonia). The current category set-up is highly arbritrary, and seems to be based largely on OR interpretations of names. Soman ( talk) 12:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I broadly agree with the nominator about the extent of overlap between the terms 'Democratic socialist', 'Socialist' and 'social democrat', so I won't oppose the merger. It is true that in theoretical terms there is a huge gap between socialism and social democracy, but in practice the terms are both used to refer to a similar set of political parties.
    However, I think that the problem is a deeper one. Ideological labels such as these are at best only a crude pointer to some of the values which a political party espouses, and many parties incorporate aspects of a variety of ideological stances: for example many parties espouse economic liberalism or social liberalism, but fewer do both. Even concepts like "social liberalism" can be misleading, as the response of social liberals to different social issues can vary widely.
    More importantly, many political parties are not solely or primarily ideological in their base; some are ethnic or religious or geographical, or just plain opportunist. They may contain a wide range of ideological currents, and when measured on a left-right spectrum their ideology may appear to fluctuate wildly.
    Then there are parties whose ideology changes markedly. Fianna Fáil has at times been close to socialist, and at other times neo-liberal.
    So I would prefer to delete all such parties-by-ideology categories as too crude and simplistic to be useful. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify -- Whether a party falls into the definition seems to depend (1) on its name (2) on the POV of the editor as to how they define social democrat. It is all to vague. Some time ago we deleted categories that designated people as "conservative" or "liberal" where these were not related to party memberships as POV. We should delete this too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The ideologies of social democracy and democratic socialism do overlap significantly—see e.g., The Nordic Model of Social Democracy (2013)—but they are conceptually distinct and are treated as such by extant literature. See, for example, "Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism", by Anthony Wright, in Contemporary Political Ideologies (1999, 2nd ed); Global Capitalist Crisis and the Second Great Depression (Navarro, 2012); Ideology in a Global Age (Soborski, 2013); and Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (Busky, 2000).
    It is incontestable that differentiating political parties between 'social democratic' and 'democratic socialist' parties is a complex and somewhat murky task, but all we need to do is to use the labels applied by reliable sources. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete The very fact that differentiating these two is "a complex and somewhat murky task", suggests it should be done with lists which can be nuanced and sourced, not with a category that will be neither. Categories work best with clear yes or no answers, which we will not get here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    Listifying may be the best option, but in that case we should nominate and seek consensus to apply that action to all similar categories, instead of singling out this particular category while (potentially) leaving the rest. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the reasons offered by Black Falcon. Follow what the sources say seems to be a sound standard. Dimadick ( talk) 10:54, 4 December 2013 (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:Cat 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: Withdrawn by nominator Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill defined category that contains two people that draw cats and one cat that's used as a fashion model. Not clear what the intended purpose is, but it appears to be failing said purpose. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

@ User:Sven Manguard: Should this category be merged into Category:Animal artists, then? It appears to be an excessively precise category. Jarble ( talk) 18:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That is total nonsense! Johnbod ( talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Now has 11 artists. I strongly suspect some commenters are just unaware of how specialized many artists have been historically, and are now. We have categories for horse, bird, cat and dog artists, which seems about right - cattle might be added perhaps. Would anyone seriously suggest deleting the "equine artists"? Johnbod ( talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I would if, when I saw first it, it was in the same poor shape as Cat artists was when I nominated it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:28, 9 October 2013 (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:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one subcategory (containing one article entry) and one article entry. (Prior to this week, it contained only the single subcategory.) Is this category overly specific and unlikely to ever contain enough article entries to justify its existence? Dwpaul ( talk) 04:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, now it has two article entries. The second entry is for the mother of the subject of the first article entry. Both are notable in her own right but neither is notable for a reason having directly to do with their Slavic ancestry (or their residency in New Zealand). Dwpaul ( talk) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I had added a source to the Lorde article that says she is of "Yugoslav" ancestry, but this has been removed. She is also of Dalmatian ancestry, which presumably is a subset of Yugoslav ancestry. St Anselm ( talk) 13:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Thx. Any thoughts on the CfD? You're the only editor to have used the category recently -- before that it had one article entry. Dwpaul ( talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
(ec)Yes, I was getting to that. I see it's a significant ethnic group. [1] [2] These sources suggest a possible merge to Category:New Zealand people of Croatian descent ("though they are really Croats, a name they prefer, they are often called Dalmatians") or else a rename to Category:New Zealand people of Dalmation descent, as a subcategory of Category:Dalmatian people. St Anselm ( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm finding this really interesting: "Many early immigrants to New Zealand hated the Austro-Hungarian empire, and when Dalmatia became part of Yugoslavia they proudly called themselves Yugoslavs. But those who arrived after the Second World War had lived in Yugoslavia and did not share this enthusiasm. As the war atrocities in Yugoslavia mounted during the 1990s, factions developed in the Auckland community. For some, the sight of the Yugoslav flag became offensive. Others disliked the word ‘Croatian’ because Croatian fascists had supported Hitler in the Second World War. But if they were not Yugoslavs or Croatians, what were they? The Auckland Yugoslav Society met to debate the issue. The term ‘Dalmatian’ was eventually reinstated, being the most neutral." [3] St Anselm ( talk) 13:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
All that to say that most people in Category:New Zealand people of Croatian descent would be of the same ethnic group, and so my vote is merge there. St Anselm ( talk) 13:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Support change to merge per your research. Dwpaul ( talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The overall pattern of such categories is that if a "FOOian emigrants to BAR" category exists, then a "BARian people of FOOian descent" category is the parent category. This is the case across hundreds of such categories. Since Category:Yugoslav emigrants to New Zealand exists, so too should the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, but a) at least one of the people in the category you mention did not emigrate (was born in NZ) and if she had would not have done from Yugoslavia, since it hasn't existed during her lifetime and (b) there seems to be significant controversy about referring to someone as being of Yugoslav descent, since the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was partitioned into multiple states some years ago (and there are negative connotations to the term for some). Dwpaul ( talk) 16:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure on what you are referring to. Mazhar Krasniqi was born in Yugoslavia and emigrated to New Zealand as a Yugoslav national. Thus he was a "Yugoslav emigrant to New Zealand". Since Category:Yugoslav emigrants to New Zealand legitimately exists, then so too should the parent, which is the nominated category. I see no issue here, and since it is part of a consistent overall scheme, WP:SMALLCAT doesn't come into play. [User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The person I was referring to was born in 1996 (long after Yugoslavia was dissolved) but is no longer linked to the category in question. I was not referring to Krasniqi. Dwpaul ( talk) 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I gathered that, but if there are articles that can still be legitimately categorized in Category:Yugoslav emigrants to New Zealand and/or the parent Category:New Zealand people of Yugoslav descent, the fact that one or two articles that have been in the category don't belong in the category is not a reason to delete the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There's two 20th century people in there, so while this was indeed the period of the existence of Yugoslavia, it's also fairly clear that we can use modern terminology as well. Sonja Yelich can be moved to the Croatian category with no loss of fidelity - on the off chance that her ancestors were not Croats ( [4]), the toponym of Dalmatia is still fairly unequivocally subordinated to the toponym of Croatia in the 20th century. Mazhar Krasniqi can just stay in the Kosovar descent category. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is part of multiple established trees. Just because Yugoslavia ceased to exist in about 2002, there is no reason to assume that we will not get more articles who emigrated from Yugoslavia at some point to NZ. The existence of this category does no harm. There are clearly people who belong here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- at least until it can be emptied into all the post-Yugoslav ethnic equivalents. Yugoslavia was a country for some 70 or 80 years, and we cannot just write that off. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118.170.16.14

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) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Established in violation of WP:HSOCK, no evidence presented, no prior blocks, no SPI GregJackP  Boomer! 03:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. ...William 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —   dain omite   09:28, 10 October 2013 (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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 113.22.129.101

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) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Established in violation of WP:HSOCK, no block or SPI history GregJackP  Boomer! 03:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. ...William 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom in addition to being an empty category. —   dain omite   09:28, 10 October 2013 (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:Salford City Reds

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) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: main page has been renamed. Mattlore ( talk) 02:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom -- The convention on alumni category is that alumni of a renamed college are treated as attneding the successor. This should also be applied to sporting clubs. However articles about seasons before the club was renamed should be kept with their contemporary name, though in Category:Salford Red Devils seasons, however incongrous this may seem. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_3&oldid=1088120114"