Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11



Category:People from Congress Poland

 * 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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Congress Poland to Category:People of Congress Poland
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't think there's any significant difference with regards to of and from here. The of category is more open, allowing for inclusion of - for example - Russian officials such as Category:Namestniks of the Kingdom of Poland. It is also located in the well populated parent category of Category:Polish people of the partition period. Upon merging, Category:Imperial Russian people should be probably retained, but Polish people being an overcat should be discarded. . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not Category:Congress Poland people, thus avoiding the categorisation of the rulers as being "from" there and identifying people like Zygmunt Balicki as being a person "of" the regime? SFB 19:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, but is this the preferred wording? If so, we may need to deal with a number of other related categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge, and I would also consider a reversed merge. However, in either merge direction, we will end up with two categories, because either it becomes Category:People of Congress Poland but then we need to keep emigrants from Congress Poland apart, or (with a reversed merge) it becomes Category:People from Congress Poland and we need to keep Russian officials apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose people from Fooland are just that, those "of Fooland" have some connection with the Fooland government, especially if its some time/geography/policitally limited Fooland. (see, e.g., Category:People of Nazi Germany which are limited to state actors basically, although Category:German people of World War II seems to have metastasized beyond being a true daughter cat to include civilians and such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think, by using "of", that people should be tied to the government in order to be categorized. Category:People of Nazi Germany is a child cat of Category:People by former country and in other child cats of the latter, the use of "of" is quite broad. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's how they are being used - whether they are (or ought be) interpreted that way. We have may categories Category:People of foo, which seem to be people having something to do with Foo - not just living there at the time. {see, e.g., Category:People of the French Revolution, which are people who had something to do with that place and time not folks like Charles-Claude Flahaut de la Billaderie, a civil servant who lived then and there, much less Lê Ngọc Bình who lived during that period but 1000s of miles away. Moreover, we don't have constructs like Category:Congress Poland people as suggested by SFB above, because the parallel would be Category:Nazi Germany people a horrible title into which anti-Nazis would end up being categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that 'of' can be interpreted in multiple ways. I'd distinguish between 'of event' = playing a role in the event (like with the French Revolution) and 'of country' = in country. So for Congress Poland we might better use 'in' instead of 'of'.....? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "in" or "from", not "of". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would propose to pursue this merge for Congress Poland and later on have a batch nomination to rename People of former countries into People in former countries. Would that be okay with you as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question existence -- Poland has had a checkered history, with a variety of borders, but would it not be beter to treat them all as Polish people? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good question but I would suggest first completing this merge discussion before going to a next one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:European Union Civil Service Tribunal

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:European Union Civil Service Tribunal to Category:Court of Justice of the European Union and Category:Civil Service of the European Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Contains only the article of the same name. I don't know of anything else that could be added to the category at this stage. There are not articles or subcategories for judges or case law. I suggest upmerging it to both parents for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Doesn't seem to merit the content for creation at the moment, though I'm not opposed to recreation should such material emerge. SFB 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.

Java (programming language)

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Java libraries to Category:Java (programming language) libraries
 * Propose renaming Category:Software programmed in Java to Category:Software programmed in Java (programming language)
 * Propose renaming Category:Free software programmed in Java to Category:Free software programmed in Java (programming language)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. These were originally nominated in the speedy section under WP:C2B to match the parent Category:Java (programming language), but was opposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support libraries, Oppose software. I don't think we should use disambiguation handles when the topic is not not ambiguous in the category context. SFB 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that that opinion is a reasonable one, but it should also be acknowledged that past consensus has disagreed on that point. The most common context this has arisen in is the many discussions about the subcategories of and, most recently here and here. Having a set rule is easier to apply and avoids the debate of what is "ambiguous in context", since reasonable users could disagree on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to match the parent, and because the name is ambiguous. At the very least, it at makes grammatical sense to say something is programmed in Java, even if it would be a small category. kennethaw88 • talk 03:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 Daily Show correspondents and contributors

 * 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. Noting that this was deleted in the past after a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the daily show correspondents and contributors


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize performers by show. Cf. Category:Saturday Night Live cast members. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The earlier CFD argued deletion per WP:OC. Perhaps OC#PERF has changed since the last 2012 CFD, since I think it is a stretch to interpret it (as written today) as discouraging categorization of performers by TV series. I don't see how is this different from listing corporate people by their employer, such as Category:People by company?—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that actors may cooperate in dozens of shows while employees for which an employer is a defining characteristic are only categorized with that one employer. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Opppose The deletion rationale is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And "Oppose" in this case would mean to "Keep"—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing people that were guests on the show would fit WP:OC. Long-term employees are something else.12:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename I would be open to removing the "and contributors" because it's ambigious. (Note: That is my 2nd vote.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per WP:OC, and per numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC, but the staff correspondents probably ought to be merged to their network. Possibly the solution may be to rename per RevelationDirect and purge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, your !vote seems to be to Delete or Rename, not merely delete (no problem, just clarifying).—Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC. Most of these actors have been in many tv shows and movies, and this is just one small part of their careers. kennethaw88 • talk 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Category:The Daily Show correspondents" as suggested by RevelationDirect and Peterkingiron. Despite my questioning how OC#PERF applies in my earlier December 11 comment, there have only been subsequent WP:VAGUEWAVEs to the guideline. Can someone quote the exact verbage that I may be missing? Otherwise, I think it's arbitrary to treat this subset of employees different from others, merely because they may have more than one notable employer in their career. For what it's worth, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists at Category:Journalists by publication, and even for a similar TV news show at Category:60 Minutes correspondents.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't favor a special treatment of actors either. It should apply to just every person who has a different employer every few years. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some cursory notes: The Daily Show has been around since 1999. Its host, Jon Stewart, has served in that role since 1999. Of the first two names in the show's infobox, Samantha Bee has been a correspondent since 2003, and Jason Jones since 2005. If a person is not defined by a category, the category should not be added to the article per WP:CATDEF.  It does not preclude the existence of the category for articles where it is, in fact, defining.—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:OC (under Performers by performance venue): This also includes categorization by performance in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production It also lists the specific example Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25 where, incidentally, Category:The Daily Show correspondents was deleted. kennethaw88 • talk 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing !vote from "Rename" above. Thanks kennethaw88. I missed it before at Overcategorization. Strange that this is organized under "venue", when I think of television as a "medium" and would not have expected anything relevant to this discussion to be found there. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_25 states "we should not delete the category until and unless there is a good list as an alternative." Category:The Daily Show correspondents was deleted previously per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15, which stated "The Daily Show already has a cast list sub article set up". I deduce that this is List of The Daily Show correspondents. I recommend that WP:OC#PERF be reworded to not confuse a role on television with it's "venue", which implies it's studio or set location, not the role on the television series itself.  Also, the recommendation that a list be created in lieu of a category should be more clearly stated.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 by ethnic or national 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: Reverse merge. Again this does not address the delete opinion expressed.  There was a consensus on the merge so lets get that one closed.  Future discussions concerning deletion or other cleanup can be pursued as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People by ethnic or national descent to Category:People by ancestry
 * Nominator's rationale: Following an uncertain outcome of this discussion and a conversation at User talk:Fayenatic london, I propose the "ethnic and national descent" category be merged into the new, main ancestry category. Ancestry is preferable as it removes the need for the descent category to be based on purely ethnic or national terms. It also removes the difficulty in establishing what constitutes a nation and what does not. The usage of ancestry avoids these issues and is more inclusive for things such as Category:People of Liberated African descent‎, Category:People of Caribbean descent and Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent. SFB 00:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * comment as currently set up, this would be a loss to parent categories to which this category belongs. How can the target be fixed. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Category:People by ethnicity category can remain as a logical parent to ancestry, but Category:People by nationality should be removed in any case from both categories as the contents of Category:People by ethnic or national descent are not forms of people by nationality – either they have that official nationality and can thus be in the normal parent national cat, or they are of a different nationality. Effectively, the argument is that national descent =/= nationality. SFB 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * comment the article at Ancestry in WP does not support your use of the term for this purpose. It talks all about parents, grandparents, etc. and not at all about ethnic or national origin of them. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article on ancestry. We do have one on ancestor, which is why it focuses on individuals and not the field of ancestry. Ancestry most definitely covers matters of ethnicity and descendants. SFB 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge, which could be done speedily if the nominator would agree (as he created the "ancestry" categories). – Fayenatic  L ondon 05:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge, excluding the "children of XXX" categories from the merge. My concern with a "by ancestry" category is similar to Hmains's, in that it could suggest that we could or should have subcategories of things like Mayflower descendants or Descendants of Queen Victoria, while this type of category has been consistently deleted. If the category is "by ethnic or national descent", there is no need to debate what is or what is not a nation, since it can be either or both to be included in the category. I think the nominated category's name is a pretty good reflection of the contents. Another option would be to keep both but just use the ancestry category for the "children of XXX" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Creation of bad categories is always possible. Any trivial categories can be deleted separately. Otherwise, we may have to delete Category:People by occupation on the grounds that someone might create Category:International street sausage jugglers and put it in there. SFB 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's always possible, but in this case, I support the option that is less likely to encourage such possibilities. And in this case, the implementation of my opinion would result in a restoration of a long-standing status quo ante rather than changing a long-standing category, as would be the case in any change to Category:People by occupation. So I don't think your comparison is an entirely fair one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete them all; unmaintainable, arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately not defining for most people with mixed ancestry/ethnic/national/descent/race/etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a completely random sample of five articles from Category:People by ethnic or national descent and this gives good credit to Carlossuarez' objection:
 * In Category:People of Abkhazian descent, in Fatma Pesend Hanımefendi, parents' nationalities are mentioned in the text and used as descent categories but based on the further article text it doesn't seem to be any relevant for the person himself.
 * In Category:Indian people of Pashtun descent, in Akbar Khan (director), the person's descent is not mentioned in the article text at all, yet he is categorized as such.
 * In Category:People of African-American descent, in Alan Blake, the person's grandfather's ethnicity is mentioned as the last thing of the article text, hence not very defining.
 * In Category:People of Afrikaner descent, in BJ Botha, the person is not quite of Afrikaner descent, because he is just born as an ethnic Afrikaner in South-Africa.
 * In Category:People of Akan descent, in Osei Kofi Tutu I, the person is not quite of Akan descent, he just is an Akan.
 * An entire deletion may be too much but I think, at the very least, that we should limit descent categories to new-emerging ethnic groups in a country of immigration, like Irish in the USA or Pakistani in the UK. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For years now, Carlossuarez46 has been voting to delete all of the ethnic or national descent categories which come up for nomination, regardless of what is being proposed with them. That's fine, and I admire his consistency, but the approach has never gained a consensus in all these years, and to my knowledge Carlossuarez46 has never done a batch nomination of this entire class of categories to formally propose deletion. But I would bet if one were done, it would not be successful. I used to be pretty sympathetic to Carlossuarez46's views on these categories, but the more discussions I have seen, the less "optimistic" I am that deletion is a viable possibility consensus-wise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel much the same. For me, the biggest problem is that we have more editors enthusiastic about tagging people with ethnic/national categories than we do editors enthusiastic about adding sources for these claims (or removing non-article-justified categories). SFB 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it solvable by first defining stricter guidelines? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not "solvable", since there will always be users who disregard or are ignorant of guidelines for category inclusion, but certainly it might help. Really, as Sillyfolkboy points out indirectly, if users would just not add these categories unless the information was cited to a source, that would be a huge advance and would have the potential of resolving most of the issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The most obvious idea is to identify this issue as the BLP violation that it clearly is. A source must be provided that either directly confirms that heritage for the subject, or indirectly does so by confirming the ancestry of the subject's known family. Maybe this should be raised on the BLP noticeboard to raise awareness and the requirement stated on each category? I'm pretty sure around 50–90% of the descent tree contents will fail this basic, and important, requirement. SFB 07:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be worthwhile trying this. At this stage, if they continue to exist, I would be ready to endorse pretty much any attempt to improve how they are applied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The two of you are more experienced than I am and probably know the best channel(s) to achieve this. If you need my support please let me know the right place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not done a batch nomination because I doubt it would succeed because most batch nominations beyond a few fail - even with a test nomination, everyone will come up with "well that's good for X, but not for Y" arguments. These are all useless ultimately and ought to go, so I advocate when they come up, rather than trying a big nom to get rid of them all once and for all as no doubt, some would call it disruptive. Woe be to anyone in the minority in this place - dissent is disruption. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ought we start a RFC to see where consensus is now, just to see if we might now with WP:BLP in force, etc., get a consensus to see if these are proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would be fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with doing that. It seems like the best way forward at this stage, to get a broader view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A near-perfect example of why I am skeptical of the (entirely plausible) argument for deletion of this tree is this discussion. As soon as a descent category is nominated that has a single user that is a booster (often the category creator), that user goes out and non-neutrally notifies all the other users that he knows will also support keeping the category. With the WP:CANVASS problems, it turns into a mess that becomes nearly impossible for any closing admin to untangle, and due to a lack of consensus and a blighted process, everything stays the same. It can be frustrating. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

perhaps a centralized RFC would alleviate that, as most nationalistic champions have their less liked groups (keep the Foo category but it's ok to delete the Faa one), and arguments in that direction any decent admin would just ignore. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * reverse merge (or leave well alone). This is a well-established tree and we should let it grow.  However An Africaaner should be in an Africaaner category, not a descent category (etc).  However that is a matter of purging categories, not of deleting them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all categories/subcategories I concur with Carlos, actually. Not really defining after giving this some thought. Also, nationality ≠ ethnicity/ancestry.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all categories/subcategories per Carlos, Marco etc. The ethnicity/nationality of a persons great-grandparents (some articles are in at least 7 "descent" categories) is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. If a page is in a "descent" category then the info should already be in the article text (if it is sufficently important and referenced). If some editors wish to capture the info in a more structured form (e.g. that a RS says that notable person's maternal grandfather was of a particular ethnicity) then try WikiData. DexDor (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge these two types of categories. On the issue of definingness, I don't think anyone would argue that being a child of Haitian immigrant parents is not defining for Mia Love, or being the son of Jamaican immigrants is irrelevant for Colin Powell or being the son of a Kenyan immigrant matters not for Barack Obama or being the child of immigrants from India matters not for Bobby Jindal. So it is clear that descent matters in some cases. We need to not allow it to be included in cases where it is mere trivia, but that does not mean we should delete categories, only apply them with more rigor. I have long argued a source needs to exist for applying these categories, and have faced resistance on this. I hope this discussion means that more will join in demanding sources before someone places Abigail Hernandez in Category:Latina actresses with not one mnetion of her ethnicity in the article, or similar cases of original research based on assumptions about a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment One problem is that if you remove some ethnic tags (Jewish and African-American) you risk being called anitsemitic or racist. Another related problem is some people will return categories and even list the reason why in the comments, citing sources of various levels of reliability. However these people neglect to put the sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all categories/subcategories - Per WP:CAT. Categories are just the wrong way to display such information, especially as it can get nuanced, requiring explanation, and references - neither of which can be done through categorisation. As for defining, who draws the line on who gets included in a cat and who doesn't?  And how many generations do we go back for a certain ethnicity to "count"? And who decides that?  Categories are just not the way to handle such information. It needs to be clearly explained, and that isn't possible when using categories. - jc37 01:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all categories/subcategories per Jc37's rational. Categories are not the right way to display this information, and keeping them invites contention and unsourced claims. Mamyles (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've requested and admin close this discussion. This has been outstanding for quite some time now and needs to be closed one way or another. I think the conversation goes much broader than (and away from) my proposition. I think it is probably a good basis to start a wider request for comment to see if we can establish in policy a requirement to give an explicit source when putting an ancestry-type category on an article (perhaps as part of Biographies of living persons?). Even for those who advocate deletion, such a move would greatly rationalise the structure and limit abuse. SFB 20:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.