- 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) 02:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Nominator's rationale:
Overcategorization on a
non-defining intersection of otherwise unrelated traits.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
Disagree for the reasons that
- in fact, avoiding to categorize individual wikis by now 6 categories;
- sic, logical sub-subcatogory of its parent-categories
-
Category:American women of Indian descent
-
Category:Politicians of Indian descent
-
Category:American women in politics
-
Category:Indian women in politics
-
Category:American politicians of Indian descent
-
Category:American women of Asian descent in politics;
- i.e., about nearly 30 entries of about 100 wikis within
Category:American women of Asian descent in politics are categorized by
Category:American women of Indian descent in politics;
- which, btw, was established in 2012;
- sic, among others,
WP:OCAT fails.
Roland zh (
talk) 04:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC) / [edited ]
Roland zh (
talk) 05:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Disagree because
- NARROWCAT also fails, ...In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories...;
- as pointed at 3) and 4) 28 of 95 related wikis;
- 2012 parent category
- @other interested wikimedians, please take a minute for reading my imho logical arguments above mentioned, thx
Roland zh (
talk) 06:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
Comment: one again, there are no 'delete'-related arguments that seems to follow usual logical criteria:
Question: hence, you argue that WP:xxx, honestly, recommends to categorize each related wiki by 6 categories, instead of much user-friendly to categorize by one single valuable category – that seems haphazardly/gratuitous, and missing logical and IT-related principles, and to make it impossible to categorize logically at WP-EN...
For WP-rookies like me, and probably the majority of EN-WP users who may be interested, please argue logical, and explain why, for you WP-focused guys, my imho rather logical arguments might fail?
... especially, as I remarked
Comment:
User:Bearcat's re-categorization (2016-09-17 ~06:00) of a small-dimensioned category like, for instance,
Category:Horror fiction television series (France, for instance, 3 entries :() ...
Question: ... but sub-categories for
Category:American politicians of Asian descent, hence, and, in fact, the huge parent categories
Category:American politicians (women/men separated) and
Category:Indian politicians (women/men separated) are not valuable, although logical... ?
Finally, not wasting more time to argue as frustrated by 'just' WP-votes and tilting at WP-windmills, but interested to read logical arguments and explanations, at least, to learn by that deletion-related topic,
Roland zh (
talk) 15:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Television series categories are always subcatted by nationality wherever possible, because the country a television series comes from is a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the series — please note that
WP:OCLOCATION says that national subcategories can exist, regardless of size, if that is part of an accepted overall subcategorization scheme where subcategorization by country is expected. And furthermore, I did not create any of the national subcategories in that tree; I merely recategorized a handful of series that were sitting in the parent category despite the fact that a national subcategory already existed for their country of origin.
- The size of a possible category is not the only determinant of whether it's an appropriate basis for categorization or not: there are situations where a one-item category is perfectly acceptable and not a
WP:SMALLCAT, and there are situations where a category with hundreds of possible entries is not acceptable. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of topics grouped on every possible characteristic that happens to apply to two or more articles: we categorize topics on characteristics that are central to their basic notability, not on every individual characteristic that they happen to have. You could create a category for
Category:People with missing toes, for instance, because we do have a considerable number of articles about people who happened to be missing one or more toes — but those people aren't defined by that fact in any substantive way. You could create a category for
Category:People with blue eyes, because every human being in existence has one of only a very small number of possible eye colours and so thousands upon millions of people could be added to an eye colour category — but people aren't defined by their eye colour. But conversely, films are defined by the fact of who directed them, so even a one-item subcategory of
Category:Films by director is allowed to exist.
- We actually have a policy document,
WP:CATEGRS, which exists to clarify when categorization on "identity" characteristics like ethnic background are warranted and when they're not. One of its conditions is that the grouping has to itself represent a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. American politicians, for example, are legitimately classified as being defined by the general fact of being "African-American" or "Asian" or as women, as it is an occupation that has historically been impacted by racism and sexism which have created barriers to the participation of women and non-whites — and while thankfully that's changing, even today women and people of colour still aren't actually represented in politics in anything approaching the same percentages that they represent of the general population. But within the "African-American" grouping, that racism does not further distinguish whether the politician's black ancestors were from Gambia or Uganda or the Congo or South Africa, so their career in politics is not defined by any individual ancestry beyond the basic fact of being African-American — and within "Asian-Americans", politicians are not subsequently treated more differently based on whether they're Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Thai, Indian or Burmese, so while "Asian-American politicians" is an acceptable and appropriate and defining level of categorization, which individual ethnicity they have below that fact is not defining in conjunction with their political career. EGRS, in fact, specifically cites politicians as the example of a category where subcatting by individual ethnic background is not warranted.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete way too much overcat to make this category workable. Note that
Category:American women of Indian descent should be a container category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Potential keep -- Despite being a multiple intersection it is well enough populated to be kept. My concern is however with the name. None of the three whom I looked at were politicians as such. One was a political activist; another had held a governmental office, probably a presidential appointment; the third was US attorney for a State, which I presume to be an appointed (not elected) position. Rename somehow, better to reflect its content. I think that Indian immigration to USA is more recent than most African-Americans, so that an ethnic category may be appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Hi
Bearcat thank you for your explanations, as done yesterday by the related wiki tool at the version history :-) btw: I did mention that you just re-caterorized. Honestly, im a too simple-mind-structured standard-wikimedian Gnome to be able to really understand these WP-xx topics, but respect the argument of potentially racism. Although 'Indian descent' imho is country-related not by race, as imho at that case implemented just 'country-related', please see p.e. the American-people-related subcategories that also include categories of 'Indian' social groups, among many others Bangladeshi [sic], Malayali (Kerala), Marathi (Maharastra], Punjabi (India and Pakistan), and many more. Kindly regards,
Roland zh (
talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Hi
Peterkingiron, thank you :-) just remarked as cross-editing before saving: I love logical arguments, kindly regards,
Roland zh (
talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- back to the last recent topic: ... but WP-xx arguments, quotation "...to make this category workable..." are not helpful,
Honi soit qui mal y pense, instead of a simple re-caterization of that xxx category started in a good manner, and spending much time :(((
- or the categorization by descent of
Category:American women of Asian descent in politics - just hours ago, not be me – are of a very negative connotation, and supports my initial logical arguments :-((
- As by that categorization my lots-time-spending personal task 'Indian-American' and 'Indian politicians' months ago was finished, that tiny sub-task will be completed accordingly within just one single minute, it's just fair, doesn't it :( bye,
Roland zh (
talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete combination of nationality, race/ethnicity/career OCAT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Comment: "Indian" is not a "race", it's a country :) –> see p.e. "American" = USA, etc etc,
Roland zh (
talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Indian is a country, i.e. Nationality as I said. If you cannot read, please don't post snarky comments.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 03:44, 27 September 2016 (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.