From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13

Category:Lists of people by association

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 24#Category:Lists of people by association. ℯ xplicit 00:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear how this category differentiates itself from its parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Meanwhile Category:People by association largely serves as a container category of container categories, implying that very few articles are directly in an association category. This is one of the remaining exceptions. In this case, grouping by having "associated with" in the article title is actually a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 14 October 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.

Years in the Israeli Civil Administration Area

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, though it was trending towards option D. I recommend a fresh nomination with an option or options which are clearly set out. This discussion ended up as more of a brainstorming exercise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Added 14 Oct:
Nominator's rationale: There was consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_22#Category:1993_establishments_in_the_Palestinian_territories to merge the 1982–1993 establishments hierarchies for Israeli Civil Administration area and Palestinian territories, and a balance favouring "Palestinian territories". I have done some housekeeping to redirect parent categories that became empty, but consensus is needed to harmonise the rest of the structure.
I am inclined to keep the decades categories e.g. Category:1980s establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area and Category:1990s in the Israeli Civil Administration area as part of the ICAA hierarchy, but containing year categories for PT e.g. Category:1990s in the Palestinian territories.
Alternative Option B: keep the nominated categories, and rename the Palestinian territories categories back to ICAA, i.e. reversing the merges that were done after the previous CFD.
Note: if the renaming to PT is approved, then the 1967–1982 year categories within Category:Israeli Military Governorate can be nominated for similar treatment afterwards. Note that 1982 estab was merged to Category:1982 establishments in the Palestinian territories as part of the earlier CFD; if the alternative in this CFD is approved, then that merge should be reversed from PT to IMG. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I notice that support for option D is growing in the discussion below. For me option D is close enough to the original nomination to support that alternative as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Obviously as Pt is an anachronism for 1980s, it should be merged into ICA - alternative B. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
If option B is chosen, then I suggest that all "ICA area" categories should carry an explanation of the years and locations that the ICA covered. I have just found one page which has an attempt to do this, namely Category:1983 in the Israeli Civil Administration area, but most of them do not explain what ICA was; e.g. the header info for the succeeding 1984 category currently has only a red link. I have some awareness of this topic, but when I first came across these "ICA area" categories I did not understand that they were set up to be precursors to the later "Palestinian" categories. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Until the 1990s most sources and UN used "Occupied Arab territories" (like this [1]) for all territories under the Israeli Military Governorate and under the Civil Administration System. Israeli-occupied territories term came into use later and notably also added southern Lebanon, where Israeli Army supported local Lebanese Christian militias via military deployment. In 1999, the UN added a new concept "Palestinian territories, Occupied" to specifically refer to areas A,B,C of the PNA. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I believe that since 1 October 1999, Palestinian Territory, Occupied was the ISO Short name and the ISO Official name was Occupied Palestinian Territory if that's any help. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Using a vague nickname (IoT) with vague definition for the actual governance systems (IMG, ICA, OpT/PNA) is like utilizing category:Years in Uncle Sam for the US. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer Option D Occupied Arab territories. However, I would prefer not to use this for southern Lebanon, where the occupation was relatively short and in cooperation with Christian allies. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Occupied Arab territories is actually the other name of the Israeli Military Governorate. Option D per nominator is " occupied Palestinian territories". GreyShark ( dibra) 06:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Occupied Arab territories is problematic as it would include the Golan, Sinai (until 82), and South Lebanon. There might be good cause to unlump Gaza and the West Bank into separate cats - but lumping in additional territories isn't a good idea. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Although that sounds like a useful idea, there are various (dis)establishments in Golan & Sinai; if this proposal was implemented, one solution would be to place them up into the decade categories for IMG/ICA, as I have currently done with Nimrod, Golan Heights. There is at least one ( Tamer Institute for Community Education) which "works across the West Bank and Gaza Strip"; [2] such cases could be placed in both categories. I would suggest Category:1983 in the Gaza Strip rather than just "Gaza", as part of Category:Years in the Gaza Strip which currently starts at 2006. There were until recently a few C21 establishment categories for the Gaza Strip, which were merged to Palestinian territories, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_18#Establishments_in_the_Gaza_Strip; creating this split for 1967–1993 would reopen the question of whether to extend the split hierarchy thereafter. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Golan & Sinai - only prior to 1982 (as Israel pulled out of the Sinai completely in 1982, and the Golan Heights Law, annexing the Golan to Israel, was passed in 1981). For the most part - establishments are area specific - but if an org is established at the same time at both locations (and not a few years later) - then it would be in two cats (an issue one would assume with other areas and organizations that span a few areas). Icewhiz ( talk) 20:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
​re Golan: Kanaf is currently in Category:1985 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area.
re Sinai – I was thinking of four articles in Category:1982 disestablishments in the Israeli Military Governorate. (That category currently does not match the 1982 estab category which was merged to Category:1982 establishments in the Palestinian territories; that merge would be reversed under option B.) Under option E, would the split only be done for 1983 onwards, and if so should 1967–1982 categories use IMG, so that in particular the recently-merged 1982 estab category would use IMG? – Fayenatic London 11:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
1982 disestab is mainly Sinai. Kanaf is wrong - as the ICA was not active after 1981 in the Golan. I would disbundle 1967-1982 as well (to Gaza, West Bank, Golan, and Sinai) - which might be consistent with 1949-1967 for Gaza and the West Bank at least (under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that Israeli Military Governorate (1967-1981) also included Golan and Sinai, which are clearly unrelated with Palestinian territories. GreyShark ( dibra) 07:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support original nomination as Palestinian territories, but would alternatively support option D (occupied Palestinian territories) with a lower preference, per common name and preference for geographical designations over political ones, especially little-known short-lived ones. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:22, 31 October 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:Lists of people by institutional affiliation

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) 00:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, presumably the two categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge obviously. I first read this as academic affiliation, but that is not what it is. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:26, 14 October 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:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express

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, but hopefully one will emerge from the discussion started here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No need for this as Gatwick Express has already merged with Govia Thameslink Railway so this train operating company doesn't exist on its own anymore. There is no need for a category about the railway stations served by a former TOC that doesn't exist on its own anymore. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 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:Railway stations served by Arriva Trains Wales

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 to Category:Railway stations served by Transport for Wales Rail. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Tomorrow, the Arriva Trains Wales franchise is going to Transport for Wales Rail Services which is going to be operated by KeolisAmey Wales. Or, the category could be renamed to Category:Railway stations served by Transport for Wales Rail or Category:Railway stations served by TfW Trains whichever is preferred. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 19:35, 13 October 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:Fungi described in the 1750s

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) 00:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty fungi decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfDs here, here, here, and here.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  18:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
WT:TREE & WT:FUNGI notified.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  19:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Occuli, none have been emptied out-of-process. Fungi year categories were standardized 2 months after the closing of the 3.5-month-long RfC. Then, the notice for this CfD was placed on the decadal categories. I believe 3.5 months is a more than adequate discussion period, followed by 2 months of being 'on display', also without objection.
Regarding all of your non-taxonomic examples, yes, WP:OTHERCATSEXIST.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  04:36, 15 October 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:Football managers who never became players

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) 00:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm not even sure that this is a defining characteristic of a football manager, that they did not play the game but even if it is "who never" sounds incorrect. Maybe "who were not"? Egghead06 ( talk) 16:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I am OK for any advice (I was confused on what word to use). Just want to categorize these rare managers in one. – Flix11 ( talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Categorising by the absence of an attribute is generally a bad idea, and I don't see anything to make this an exception to that principle. Careers are mostly defined by what the person did, rather than by what they didn't do. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it isn't defining. I would think it highly unlikely that Avram Grant never played football even say at school. Oculi ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    Grant was a youth player (not a pro, in the youth of a pro team). He turned to coaching after an injury. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We should not cat people by something they did not do. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Non-defining, hard to assess, borders on trivia. — JFG talk 11:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I Do not oppose delete, if that is consensus. However "Football managers who never played" would be a viable category, because it is relatively unusual for managers not to be ex-players. However the present category includes a chairman (who is not a manager), hence purge, if kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - named wrong way around, not defining, and categorising people by what they were not is bordering on offering an opinion. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not defining characteristic. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 19:51, 21 October 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:Daredevil seasons

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:  Relisted at 2018 OCT 23 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The parent category, Category:Daredevil (TV series), is rather small - it has only the main article, a list of its characters, and a media file - 2 articles and 1 file. Perhaps this category should be merged into the parent category, as it doesn't yet seem necessary to split the seasons into a subcategory. –  numbermaniac 12:22, 13 October 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.

People who died in the Holocaust by occupation

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 per adjusted nomination. As discussed, these will be done manually rather than by bot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: manually* delete, unrelated intersection between occupation and cause of death. Note that I have removed politicians from this nomination, since the Nazis deliberately jailed socialist and communist political opponents in concentration camps. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
* Clarification of "manually" see discussion below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Kyuko, Fayenatic london, Peterkingiron, Carlossuarez46, Place Clichy, and JFG: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete most of these. Keep Category:Spies who died in Nazi concentration camps and Category:Resistance members who died in Nazi concentration camps, since spies and resistance members were often imprisoned or executed in concentration camps if caught. Some of these need an upmerge, especially the Jewish ones. Fredy Hirsch, for instance, is in Category:Jewish sportspeople who died in the Holocaust but not in Category:Jewish sportspeople. In addition, all of the Jewish categories should be upmerged into Category:Jewish people who died in the Holocaust. Catrìona ( talk) 09:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree on making exceptions for resistance members and spies, as well as military personnel. Upmerging should be done manually, because most articles are already in a subcategory of Category:Jewish people who died in the Holocaust by nationality. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Sory, I missed that. (facepalm) Thanks for the clarification.
Please could you amend the nomination to something like "anually delete" or "selectively merge" for those cats, so that the closer is clear that these should not just be fed to the bots? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support, with appropriate upmerging. — JFG talk 11:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Object -- I looked at the engineers item, where there were 3 "died in holocaust" and 8 "died in Nazi concentration camps". I do not think we need both trees, but I do think we need one. We should not be categorising those who died of old age or disease without imprisonment in extermination/concentration camps. Calling it "holocaust" is specific to Jews, excluding Poles, gypsies, imbeciles, etc. The two latter are unlikely to include professional people. I am not sure if we need to make any distinction between those "killed" or merely "died" in camps. Death from starvation or typhus was nearly as culpable as deliberate killing. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • "Calling it "holocaust" is specific to Jews, excluding Poles, gypsies, imbeciles, etc. The two latter are unlikely to include professional people." I am not sure how to read this. Nazis have imprisonned and killed people of all kinds of professions, mostly irrespective of their profession (exceptions discussed above), Why exactly would we need to diffuse Jews by occupation (and second question, why not Poles)? Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support as in previous discussion. Per WP:OCEGRS, the Jewish/occupational intersections seem very far-fetched and Jewish victims were not selected by occupation. Besides previously mentioned exceptions, I would also exclude Category:Rabbis who died in the Holocaust where least some kind of connection can be seen. Place Clichy ( talk) 00:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per my comments above until manual mergers are clraly distinguished from deletions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've changed the nomination already and no closer will oversee the discussion that we had about this issue. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It still says "delete" beside several cats where you say below that you mean "manual selective merge". It would be simple to be explicit if you wanted, so I oppose. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:39, 15 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_13&oldid=1073191815"