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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. You are missing that African-American and Black are not the same. There needs to be a subcategory specifically for Black GEOscientists, which there currently is not. Please do NOT delete this category. Thank you.
MethanoJen (
talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is uncategorised. There is no parent category for geoscientists.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. African-American is a subset of black; not all black people are from America. If
Category:African-American geoscientists were to be made it would be subcat of this. This category now has a parent. —
Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 22:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
Vanderdecken (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Comment. Please see two up from Vanderdecken. Vanderdecken made a parent category (thank you Vanderdecken). Words and labels change. Wikipedia is big enough to handle it. Like Vanderdecken said, you can file African-American [scientist-type] under Black [scientist-type] parent categories. Please remove the threat of deleting and there won't be more comments to bother you here.
MethanoJen (
talk) 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - such categories have never been kept at cfd. Eg
CFD in 2006.
WP:ETHNICRACECAT: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not."
Oculi (
talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Link adjusted to fit small screens better. DexDor(talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment for the closer: Note that
MethanoJen, the category creator, canvassed
[1] users here to vote keep via Twitter.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 05:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per the 2006 discussion. That this category was created without any parent categories probably indicates that its creator has a poor understanding of wp categorization. DexDor(talk) 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Classifying people into "Black", "White", "Asian" (Yellow).. etc, is an American fetish we should not adopt in a worldwide encyclopedia. There racial terms are not universally accepted among in the mainstream outside USA.
Lappspira (
talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I am prepared to accept that in some situations ethnicity may be defining - though I dont see it for scientists. I dont see skin colour as defining and I dont think we should use it as a shorthand for ethnicity.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. (1) I deleted the tweet. I didn't realize I couldn't "canvass" on Twitter. I apologize. HOWEVER. (2) I think y'all in the Wiki editorial community (btw, I'm willing to bet everyone commenting above is white) needs to do a LOT of reading and thinking, particularly at this critical moment in history, before writing off "Black" as an important category on this vital resource of global knowledge. Please consider carefully before you're so quick to sweep this issue aside. Thank you.
MethanoJen (
talk) 19:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
MethanoJen: with all due respect, but I suggest that you dial down the
WP:ADVOCACY just a bit; WP:CFD is probably not the most crucial battleground for social justice at the moment. But regardless, as multiple people have pointed out now, we do not have any categories that divide people by skin color at this point, not just not for geoscientists. If you are truly convinced these types of categories are necessary, an RfC to overturn
WP:ETHNICRACECAT is in order. --
bender235 (
talk) 21:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an attempt to categorize people by race, and race divisions are at best arbitrary and inconsistent. 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Dimadick (
talk)
Delete a ghettoization category impermissible under
WP:OCEGRS; no indication that Black geoscientists do geoscience differently than others; if so, prove it!
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not another platform for virtue signalling. There are plenty of platforms available for that kind of thing; this is not one of them.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: blatant violation of
WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Note that a number of recent creations of "Black" categories may also be deleted.
Place Clichy (
talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (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:RATP
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.
Merge, the two categories have the same purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:35, 13 June 2020 (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:English Jews of the Tudor period
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, aligning with
Category:16th-century Italian Jews. English Jews did not have a specific connection with the Tudor dynasty, so that a more general century category fits better.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom rational. --
bender235 (
talk) 01:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
With the rename, the parent can be changed to
Category:16th-century English people as well, so that is not a good reason to oppose. Also, for the few articles in this category the period 1501-1600 is just as valid as the period 1485-1603.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support to conventional "by century" which is the standard. "By dynasty" is usually a bad idea. Support changing the parent to
Category:16th-century English people as well. Also, some of the people in the lands conquered by the Tudor monarchs (e.g. Ireland) would not have self-identified as "Tudor people" - they were Irish people.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:21, 13 June 2020 (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:Academic journals associated with non-profit 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.
Delete per nom and this is not defining, because most academic journals are published by universities which are (usually) non-profit organizations.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:28, 10 June 2020 (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 German teachers
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; sole article re-categorized as discussed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Name is unsatisfactorily ambiguous.
Erich Klibansky seems to have been more a teacher of English than of German, but he was a German schoolteacher - where he is already categorised. There dont seem to be any other Jewish teacher categories.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary intersection of ethnicity or religion, nationality, and career per
WP:OCEGRS. The nom also points out that ambiguity of whether this is meant to categorize Jewish people who teach German (apparently not) or Jewish people who are/were German, who teach (anything).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
There are 23 subcategories of American Jews by occupation, unsurprisingly a lot more than any other country. I suppose the question of whether the intersection is significant varies from country to country, but many of them dont seem significant to me.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The article might be better in
Category:Jews executed by Nazi Germany - if we think that is a viable category, though there only 3 articles in it at present? And maybe we need to think about
Who is a Jew? in this context. Perhaps if a person is executed by the Nazis under their definition that is the one that counts.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
That is also a proper merge target, so dual merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:19, 11 June 2020 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge to parent categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category and it is not part of a large sub-categorization scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support It's unlikely that new amphitheatres will be dug up in Germany.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 21:20, 14 June 2020 (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:People declared dead in absentia
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.
OK, Armbrust, might have a point there. I don't know what the rules are exactly. The point is that the wording should follow the main article: that is, "People presumed dead" instead of "People declared dead in absentia". We established at the main article that "presumption of death" and "presumed dead" are the standard phrases in English. "Declared dead in absentia" does not appear to be an official term, was not used by any source cited by the main article, is not used in legal dictionaries, and in fact doesn't appear to make sense. Uses of the term on the Internet appears derive from the Wikipedia article. The phrase appears to have derived from a confusion between "presumption of death" and being "sentenced to death in absentia".--
Jack Upland (
talk) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose presumed dead leads to the obvious question: "by whom?" The current formulation doesn't beg that unanswerable. There are lots of people who some people presume to be dead but have never been adjudicated as dead by a court. People
missing in action in various wars, possible kidnapping victims, absconders, and people who disappeared sufficiently long ago who would break world records in age were they still alive (even Wikipedia presumes only those born in 1896 onward as alive; therefor Wikipedia presumes those born 1895 and earlier to be dead), what use is it to put all those with
Category:Year of death missing into this category since the mere addition of that category presumes that there is a year of death, hence the person is dead (becoming, alas, a member of the proposed target category).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose This should include people declared deceased through a legal action, not just vaguely presumed dead.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: These oppose comments really miss the point. The point is that "declared dead in absentia" is not a standard legal term. I understand that "presumed dead" could be misinterpreted, so perhaps "legally presumed dead" would be better. But we should not continue to use terminology that is wrong.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a better rename indeed, less ambiguous.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename to something that makes sense and accurately describes the intended purpose of the category (People officially declared dead without a body being found?) or delete as an unnecessary category that doesn't really group articles about similar topics. People who disappeared can be categorized by the year (or decade) in which they are most likely to have died (
example). Note: If this category is intended to include everyone who has an article in wp and whose body was not found (e.g. in wartime, in an aircrash, shipwreck explosion) then the category is almost completely empty. DexDor(talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per DexDor, probably non-defining. Disappearing is defining but this isn't. Certainly I don't think it's a defining characteristic of
Raoul Wallenberg that he was declared dead in absentia. buidhe 08:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Wallenberg was not declared dead in absentia. There's no such thing.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This should only include people who have been legally declared to be dead, not those who are just widely thought to be dead. That's not defining. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:16, 23 June 2020 (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:Tell Abu Sabun
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.
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT contains 3 articles which are already interlinked directly. Upon deletion of the category, the main article
Necropolis of Emesa should be added to both current parent categories. If the category is kept, a rename to
Category:Necropolis of Emesa may be considered, in line with a recent bold rename of the main article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy Main article was only recently moved and without discussion, so C2D doesn’t apply.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 well categorized articles.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (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:Reggae albums by Puerto Rican 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.
Nominator's rationale: The article for
Reggaeton says that the genre is not to be confused with reggae (thus not the same genre) while artists/albums listed on this category fit the description "reggaeton". --
Lk95 8:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Note to admin Suggest relisting as category was never tagged. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Category was not properly tagged until 26 May 2020.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to the lack of an overarching scheme for reggaeton albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:29, 11 June 2020 (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:Afro-Latin American
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. bibliomaniac15 20:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Now, it's rather obvious that to anyone outside of the USA and maybe Canada that "
American" (and especially "Latin American") is a term used to refer to people living in both North and South America. However, here in the States, we're special and also use it for our country's
demonym (
Americans). Cool. So why bring this up now? Well,
Category:Afro-Latin American is currently being used to sort American Afro-Latino (ie. USA) and Afro-Latin Americans. I think it would probably be for the best if we did a soft split for Americans of the USA and everyone else. I bring this up because I noticed
Medaria Arradondo is currently categorized as
Afro-Mexican when he really should be categorized as
Category:Afro-Latin American (United States),
Category:American people of Mexican descent, and
Category:African-American police officers. He's pretty obviously not a citizen of Mexico. My heart isn't dead set on the name though. If people want it to match the
parent article, that's good with me as well. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Question, is there a distinct Afro-Latin American ethnic community in the United States?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Yes? Well, yes and no. It's a thing, but it's still in progress. If you search for "afro-latinx" (which is pretty much an US American-exclusive term), you'll see what I mean. It's definitely been a term used by
Afro-Dominicans within the United States (ref), but it could apply to a lot of other groups (like
Afro-Puerto Ricans). –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
It gives me the impression that it is premature.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Just to be sure, this is meant as keep (do not split).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this tree is little more than a collection of categories for mostly biography articles sorted and ghettoized by race, ethnicity, and nationality intersections.
WP:OCEGRS.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
(reacting) Deletion is only meaningful if the subcategories are deleted as well. In the current situation it is a valid container category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (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:World Figure Skating Hall of Fame inductees
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 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
World Figure Skating Hall of Fame isn't officially an Olympic hall of fame but it sure looks like one in practice: 70 of the 93 articles in this category are already somewhere under
Category:Olympic figure skaters and another 78 have other Olympic connections, mostly coaches:
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G and
H. (The remaining 1615 articles are already well categorized:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15). Being in the Olympics for figure skating is definitely defining but getting this award later for the same earlier effort is not remotely defining for
Robin Cousins,
Lyudmila Pakhomova, or
Kurt Browning. We already have the winners listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Background We've consistently deleted Halls of Fame that celebrate the earlier success of athlets at the Olympic Games
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (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:WCW Hall of Fame
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 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
WCW Hall of Fame existed from 1993-1995 to recognize professional wrestlers from
World Championship Wrestling and it's predecessors. The award was a televised segment within the annual pay-per-view event,
Slamboree. In the articles, this is typically listed among other honors and doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in this former award. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (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:Cox Television
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.
Nominator's rationale: This used to be the category for the Cox Television station group, now
Cox Media Group. Moving out the active TV stations left a series of misfit articles, most of which were related to the cable company
Cox Communications, which does not have a category. (Cox Television and Cox Communications were/are separate businesses under the same family.)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename, the four remaining articles are clearly about
Cox Communications. That eponymous article should be added to the category as well after renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:04, 10 June 2020 (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.