Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 11



Category:Catholic Church stubs

 * 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 from, and rename template to CatholicChurch-stub. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting catholic church stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-standard stub templates, and failure to use the proper process. There was an extremely short discussion on the RC-stub template talk page, with only two people participating. No attempt to reach out the stub sorting community, or to list on Categories for Discussion.  Appears to be a rush to rename a well-established category for unclear reasons.  Relisting the discussion here to garner more participation.  I'm not entirely opposed to the switch of dropping "Roman" from the name, but this first needs to be discussed amongst the community, and needs to be done through all associated categories (2 people does not a concensus make on such a highly used series of categories).  At the very least, the templates need to be renamed without spacing.  Dawynn (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Similar to the non-stub categorization, we could potentially have a Category:Catholicism stubs as a parent of Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs. So if we follow that, it would call for a split of Category:Catholic Church stubs to Category:Catholicism stubs and Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs. Not sure if Category:Catholicism stubs would be big enough though. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or reverse merge with Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs. The adjective "Roman" is because certain Anglicans claim that the Church of England is a Catholic Church.  Possibly there is a case for a category for various other Catholic splinter denominations that are not in communion with Rome, but I would prefer to see these in a non-RC sibling.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid a misunderstanding: Category:Catholicism stubs, as alternatively proposed, would not only also contain articles about splinter denominations, but most particularly it would contain articles related to but not part of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. about Catholic charity organizations, and pelgrimages to Catholic holy places). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While re-reading my earlier comments I realize these comments merely over-complicate this discussion, so I struck them, Category:Catholicism stubs may better be nominated for creation in a later stage, independently of this discussion. For now, merge or reverse merge. The article is at Catholic Church, so that would suggest a reverse merge, but I'm actually very surprised that the article is not at Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a conversation about the name of the main article a while back if I recall. The reason for it being "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church" is that Roman Catholic refers to the Latin Church, which is the largest sui iuris Church within the greater Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of 24 equal sui iuris particular Churches, each with their own head, that accepts the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth and the supreme ecclesiastical authority, hold the same doctrine, and share the same sacraments.  Having the main article titled "Roman Catholic Church" rather than "Catholic Church" would be  offensive to some of the Eastern Catholic Churches and also not accurate. How to handle the naming conventions around the categories is tricky, because you also have Category: Eastern Catholic Church stubs, which to me makes sense, because Eastern Catholicism is a specific enough field of interest to where I think it deserves its own category. My thoughts would be to reverse merge Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs to Category:Catholic Church stubs because there are likely things in the Catholic stubs category that apply to both Roman Catholicism as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs into Category:Catholic Church stubs. A detailed study would find that the common name of this organization is "Catholic Church", even to those who are not award of how adding Roman on the front would confusingly limit its application.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2016 (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:Articles needing link rot cleanup

 * 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) 03:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup to Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations
 * Nominator's rationale: Per name and purpose of maintenance template, which was changed in a 2013 requested move P p p er y  (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The tag that is added to articles that need cleanup include the words "linkrot" and "bare URL" but IMO, "bare URL" is more descriptive so that category should be renamed for new users not familiar with what linkrot is. Meatsgains (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (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:British Virgin Islands news websites

 * 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 to Category:News websites by country. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting british virgin islands news websites


 * Nominator's rationale: Category whose only content is an article of the same title as the category, which addresses all three of the websites in question as a single merged topic. If each of the websites had its own standalone article then this category would be fine -- but if they're all merged into one common article about the overall concept, then that article does not need an eponymous category just to contain itself. Delete (upmerge not necessary as the article was never actually removed from the relevant parent categories in the first place.) Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I created the category - I sort of envisaged that eventually there would be articles of the various news websites to populate it (as with other similar categories for other countries). Obviously that has not happened yet.  No strong objection to its deletion, but just wanted to set out the original thinking. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- but the one article needs to be categorised in Category:News websites by country to prevent it being lost from that tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2016 (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:2010s sequel films

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2010s sequel films


 * Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this category is useful, no similar categories exist and only three articles are currently in it (though many more could probably be added). nyuszika7h (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Not part of an established structure. Similar year/genre cats were previously deleted.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sequel is not actually a genre and it is not actually categorized as such. The Category:Sequel films is large enough to be subdivided and already has various subcategories. The largest of the category trees is Category:Sequel films by country which divides sequel films by the country or countries of their production. We probably do have enough articles to subdivide by decade, though populating the potential new categories would probably take efforts by more than one editor. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate with sister categories. The sequel films category is large enough to justify this type of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I get the usefulness of decade-genre subcategories, "sequel" is not a genre per se and its conjunction with the decade of release is not WP:DEFINING. Star Wars: The Force Awakens, for example, would belong in this category — but given that the film it's a sequel to was released in the 1970s rather than the 2010s, its 2010s-ness doesn't have a defining relationship with its sequelness. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2016 (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:Attacks on civilians attributed to the Sri Lankan Muslim mobs

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting attacks on civilians attributed to the sri lankan muslim mobs


 * Nominator's rationale: Category appears to only link to one article. Read somewhere recently it should be at least 3. GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What for deletion? It is added to three articles and will be created more articles that would suitable for this category. --500eMc2 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – none of the articles (3 at present) mentions 'Muslim mobs'. Sounds like a POV creation to me. Oculi (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it clearly says "Muslim home Guard" காத்தான்குடி பள்ளிவாசல் மீதான தாக்குதலை புலிகள் மேற்கொண்டார்களா? 26 வருடங்கள் கழித்து வெளிவரும் உண்மைகள் !!!! Do you want more references? 500eMc2 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow the Tamil wikipedia page for same category and 6 articles are attached. I would translate them here and and more reference. Also, see Category such as Attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces‎, Attacks on civilians attributed to the Indian Peace Keeping Force‎, Attacks on civilians attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam‎ are well categorized. So, what is wrong with this category? 500eMc2 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you have reliable sources backing up your claims, first work on the articles and then you can add the category later. Adding the category first and looking for citations later creates issues. Kanatonian (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The biggest problem with this category is not its size, it is the POV-pushing in the use of the term "mob". Arguably the term "civilian" is also not as clear as some might think. It is clearly an attack category, trying to portray those who did the attack in as negative a light as possible with the wording. It also begs the question of who it is that "attrbuted" the attack to a "mob". This is before we even deal with the problematic issue of what makes a mob Muslim. If I can prove that there was a Christian in the crowd wearing a cross or a Buddhist monk in orange, is this enough to make the mob no longer Muslim, or do we declare the mob Muslim just based on the rhetoric of the Sri Lankan goverment that it is, rhetoric from a government that often tries to promulgate policies that make Sri Lankan more Budhist and less any other religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2016 (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:World RX

 * 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 empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting world rx


 * Nominator's rationale: On 8 August User:Holdenman05 deleted this category from over a dozen "World RX of (country)" articles and then blanked the category. I don't know anything about this area, and he may well be right in pushing the categories towards the "World Rallycross Championship" format, but I've pointed out that he should be coming through here. Le Deluge (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2016 (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:Concurrent events

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting concurrent events


 * Propose deleting concurrent wars


 * Propose deleting concurrent wars to the syrian civil war


 * Propose deleting concurrent wars to world war ii


 * Nominator's rationale: Created by Stefanomione, this entire tree makes no sense. Every event in the world, large or small, ancient or modern, happened at the same time as another event. Everything is concurrent with something. That does not create a defining characteristic or link for those two events, in and of itself. And we do not categorize things together that don't have a defining connection. Certainly, events can be causally linked or be subsets of other events -- WWII and its various permutations and theatres of conflict; the different permutations of the Arab Spring -- but we already have sensible ways to categorize those, including Category:Arab Spring by country, created by Stefanomione, years earlier, which does the job nicely when there is a real, defining connection. And of course we already have a massive categorization scheme grouping synchronous events by year, decade, century etc. But trying to do so in this way would create a myriad of non-defining categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – per nom. See also: the categories, , for other potential candidates for deletion. , , . Oculi (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we could look at those next. Many were not created by him, and I do see that there are a few "Aftermath of..." articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Aftermath of' doesn't seem satisfactory to me. Events will be in the aftermath of many other events (and/or shared names - does an article have to be titled 'Aftermath of ..'?). Oculi (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I had thought, too. Though I do see there are quite a few "Aftermath of..." articles in One where I think he clearly screwed up was he created  and  the same month, because he saw articles named Impact of... and others named Consequences of... At the very least, those two branches should be merged, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think that ones identified by Oculi are also worthy of discussion, as the song says "every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end" (Closing Time (Semisonic song)). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so. I see Stefanomione is now using his user page to crow about the "6967 categories still standing as eternal rocks" that he has graciously "donated" to us, the prick. But I know it does no one any good to get personal about it. I'll proceed with more Cfds eventually, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Civility: "Avoid name-calling. Someone may very well be an idiot, but telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." He might have caused quite a mess but he has probably created some useful categories as well. Just try to stay calm and see where each category falls. Dimadick (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. And I've never disputed that he created a great many useful categories, especially early on. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - rather confusing. Neutralitytalk 01:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It seems useless to me too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2016 (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.