Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 4



Category:Nigeria Entertainment Awards winners

 * 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) 04:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nigeria entertainment awards winners


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete but normally we would listify this as an awards category. We have annual articles on winners by ward category, probably listing those on the short list as well as winners.  My only concern is that we allow Hollywood Academy Awards; I just wonder if we should also allow those for Bollywood and the Nigerian Nollywood.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This award is non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 8 May 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:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic 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: delete. I've placed them back in Category:Armenia stubs for now, but only because that's where they were before. The template should probably be taken to TfD where they can decide what to replace it with. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nagorno-karabakh republic stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Category and stub template were created out of process; articles in this cat were already tagged with the appropriate Azerbaijan stub tag; territory is in dispute and not yet recognized as an independent entity. Her Pegship (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Nagorno-Karabakh is an area inhabited by Armenians and occupied by Armenia. Unfortunately Azerbaijan does not accept that it lost the war to Armenia, so that most countries do not recognise the annexation.  To merge this to an Azerbaijan category would be inappropriate as it does not reflect the current political reality.  If anything we should be merging this to an Armenia stub category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic content must be based on fact rather than opinion, however prevalent, and according to international law, the Nagorno-Karabakh region is still part of Azerbaijan, regardless of its inhabitants or political preferences. If and when it becomes liberated from Azerbaijan, according to the U.N. or some other defining treaty, it will be appropriate to move the articles out of the Azerbaijan category, but that has not yet happened. Until then, let us deal with things as they are and not as anyone would like them to be. Her Pegship (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Reality is that Nagorno-Karabakh is de facto part of Armenia, and no amount of the Islamic bloc and its enablers in the UN refusing to recognize reality changes that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose These articles should not be in the Azerbaijan categories because they are not de facto part of Azerbaijan. We should deal with reality, not the fiction known as international law. This is why I also support the listing of things established in Crimea in 2015 as established in Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have less interest in the politics of the region than I have in tidying up the stub tag and its category. First off, as I pointed out, they were created out of process; as a result, there's no data as to the number of articles that could use the stub template (should be more than 60 according to recommendations). Also, the template itself isn't formatted per stub criteria; if kept, it should be NagornoKarabakhRepublic-stub (or NagornoKarabakhRepublic-geo-stub if scoped for geography). The issue here is not whether a template and category are of merit in regard to the status of the region (though, since it was brought up as a point of discussion I addressed it), but whether they are needed, by show of quantity and brevity of articles proposed to go into it. Her Pegship (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a too small stub category. Given the current political situation there isn't going to be any consensus on merging this stub category anywhere, let's just await the developments of the coming years. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - NGR is a partially unrecognized state (mostly unrecognized to be precise). We already have a very similar case of Category:Northern Cyprus stubs.GreyShark (dibra) 14:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but at least has 61 articles in it. No one has yet proved that Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stubs would reach the minimum 60 articles to justify a stub category. Her Pegship (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, doesn't meet the content threshold for stub categories. If there is a dispute as to which stub categories the articles belong in, just put them in both the Azerbaijan and the Armenia ones. We don't need to fully resolve that dispute to agree that the category is too small to exist as a stub category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as undersized. Also, the stub tag is misnamed - it should be NagornoKarabakhRepublic-stub, not Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-stub. If there were enough stubs for the category, there would probably be a basis for keeping it as a subcat of the Azerbaijan category, just like we have stub categories for each US state, each autonomous community in Spain, etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else want to pitch in, or shall I close the discussion? Her Pegship (talk) 22:52, 1 June 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:Internet Archive 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: delete. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting internet archive stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Permcat contains 9 articles and 2 redirects, and a subcat with 2 articles, Even if all of these were stubs, that's nowhere near the 60 required for a stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Question, why not merge to Category:Internet stubs? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it was created in reference to the specific Internet Archive digital resource, not just a general archive of the Internet. Her Pegship (talk) 21:25, 11 May 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:Notarii

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Notarii to Category:Notaries and Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In principle support - However, I am a little wary of mixing him up with a lot of British and American lawyers who have an appointment as notaries public, which in many cases is perhaps a small part of their work.  I think the target needs splitting by nationality (of practice), just as Civil law notaries are split.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 7 May 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:Political economy

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting political economy


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, the concept of Political economy is too vague to be useful for categorization. Note there is already Category:Economic policy and its child Category:Public economics that cover more concrete aspects of economic politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * keep there is nothing whatsoever vague about it as reading the main article political economy completely demonstrates. Each category has its own separate main article.  Hmains (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quote from article lead: "Today, political economy, where it is not used as a synonym for economics, may refer to very different things, including Marxian analysis, applied public-choice approaches emanating from the Chicago school and the Virginia school, or simply the advice given by economists to the government or public on general economic policy or on specific proposals." Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's in the first section but it's the third paragraph. The actual WP:BEGINNING is fairly clear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case you really need to read the first three paragraphs in conjunction, because the text is roughly in chronological order. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT upmerge to Category:Economics Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (as nom) No objection per se, but all child categories of Category:Political economy are already in some other part of the tree of Category:Economics (mostly in Category:Public economics) so we only need to merge the articles and not the child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose While some people and institutions do use "Political economy" as a replacement term of "Economics", it is not used as a synonym, but as an alternative concept to escape the depoliticization of mainly 20th century mainstream economics. Within the mainstream, it is however used as a hybrid between a subfield and a school of thought – the former, where it is used as a middle range theory, the latter where it is considered a grand theory contesting the mainstream. --PanchoS (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry to have to say this, but the above is either a minority opinion or OR. If it's true, it would not be the common understanding. If it's true, the upmerged category could carry a note pointing out the alternative opinion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither nor. My short definition is both in line with WP:RS and with the article lead. If you consider both terms as being mere synonyms, that's too superficial. Not even the nominator says the two were the same. Political economy is an important aspect of economic theory (as I said, at least as a field, with International political economy being a contemporary and widely taught subfield. No way we can merge this into or the similarly policy-oriented . --PanchoS (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you define inclusion criteria? Just having the term "political economics" in the title or in the lead of the article is not good enough, because the term may have been used as a synonym of "economics". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 16 May 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:Bangladeshi razakars

 * 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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bangladeshi razakars


 * Nominator's rationale: Category page is politically motivated and doesn't have any academic grounds. Besides, most of the pages present in category don't have any information related to claim of category page.  ~Mohammad Hossain~  03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no main article; no definition; and since a parent is "War Criminal" (a red link), it has the feel of an attack category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a main article Razakar (Pakistan) that seems to apply well here. I've changed the parent category to Category:People of the Bangladesh Liberation War. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 12 May 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.