Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 4



Category:Abrahamic mythology

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting abrahamic mythology


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, I would have expected a topic category here, but in fact it is a totally random set of articles mainly taken from the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. Note that there isn't even an eponymous article about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for Now I'm all for more content with the similarities between Islam, Judaism and Christianity but this needs a main article to provide a clear scope. I don't see the current grab bag helping anyone navigate between articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Mythology of Abrahamic religions, unless someone can suggest a merge target. Jews and Christians share the Hebrew Bible.  Muslims have significant stories from it incorporated into the Koran, with some non-Biblical accretions such as Lilith.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, by what criteria would articles qualify for this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not wholly sure, bur with a little purging this could be converted to a category on Bible stories for the period before Abraham. It seems I am wrong about Lilith, who appears to come largely from non-Biblical Jewish literature.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So if kept it should be renamed to Category:Pre-patriarchal age in Genesis. I'm not really sure that the category is needed at all, but with this rename it would at least more clearly define its scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I've been putting this off in hope of coming up with a better name, but when it comes down to it, this is just not that well-defined. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2017 (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:Musical sextets

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting musical sextets


 * Nominator's rationale: Four hundred plus bands that happened to have six members at some point. Trivial and non-defining. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivial ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Duets and barbershop quartets vocalists have a distinct impact on the music. How many accompanying instruments, backup singers, etc. seems more likely to be coincidental and non-defining to the actual music they produce. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the rationale given by Mangoe and RevelationDirect. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – agree with above arguments. Oculi (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heavily purge perhaps by creating a few more specific categories and deleting (or emptying) the parent. In addition to Barbershop Quartets, I would suggest string and wind quartets, because these are playing classical music pieces, written for that number of players.  Quintets will normally be a quartet + one non-member.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I accept your reassurance. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. From my understanding, these categories were supposed to be utilized when a group was best known for having that amount of group members, and not simply for having that amount of members at some point. This is why, for example, Destiny's Child is categorized as a trio because it is the best-known lineup, even though it debuted and found success as a quartet. I share 's sentiment in that this should be heavily purged, and the purpose of the category more detailed and strict. Deletion of this category will be detrimental to those articles properly categorized as such. ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, to take another example, The King's Singers has always been a sextet having basically the same voices (two countertenors, a tenor, two baritones, and a bass) regardless of the membership. But a lot of the music they perform isn't innately for sextet (few madrigals are, for example, and they do a lot of that); they simply redistribute themselves over what parts there are. Does this have anything to do with the versions of the Allman Brothers where there were six members? Only the number six.


 * As I said somewhere in these discussions, when you get down into the lower numbers you start to find standard configurations in both classical and pop groups, and in the case of the latter you see some cases where the same configuration is maintained through the life of the band. But in the larger groups, people tend to come and go, and the configuration tends to shift around. And in any case the problem remains that it's not the number six that matters, but what the individual members play or sing. And there's just not that much commonality across all six-membered groups. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My experience is limited to classical music. The repertoire for chamber groups larger than four is small, so that the performers are likely to be an ad hoc group or to be a quartet with extra players.  This means that there is no stable group (or few) to categorise.  The King's Singers could be an exception for which we need to keep sextets.  However, if a pop group has at one period been a quartet and another time regularly a quintet, it seems to me that the number is non-defining.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2017 (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:Musical septets

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting musical septets


 * Nominator's rationale: I have a couple more "bands by number of members" categories. The same issue applies as for the 8-, 9-, and 10-member bands: it just isn't defining. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivial ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Duets and barbershop quartets vocalists have a distinct impact on the music. How many accompanying instruments, backup singers, etc. seems more likely to be coincidental and non-defining to the actual music they produce. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Again, I agree with the rationale given by Mangoe and RevelationDirect. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – agree with above arguments. Oculi (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heavily purge perhaps by creating a few more specific categories and deleting (or emptying) the parent. In addition to Barbershop Quartets, I would suggest string and wind quartets, because these are playing classical music pieces, written for that number of players.  Quintets will normally be a quartet + one non-member.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. From my understanding, these categories were supposed to be utilized when a group was best known for having that amount of group members, and not simply for having that amount of members at some point. This is why, for example, Destiny's Child is categorized as a trio because it is the best-known lineup, even though it debuted and found success as a quartet. For this specific category, Infinite (band) is definitely correctly categorized as a septet, despite being a sextet now. It makes sense to categorize this specific group as such. ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (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:Parents of criminals

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting parents of criminals


 * Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic which "is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" the subject as having. Being the parent of a criminal is rarely notable in itself. There are also WP:BLP issues where a category is just thrown into an article without citation or discussion on the issue, which would be giving undue weight to the matter in most cases. In my opinion this associates the criminality of the child too much with the parent. Opencooper (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete There is one member who is on there because he was acquitted of the charges his son was convicted of. That epitomizes the problem. I had to go through each article to figure out why they were included, except two: one where the criminal was familiar enough for me to guess, and of course, the clear inspiration for the category, the tragedy of last weekend. It took me several readings about one of Brigham Young's wives to figure out why he wasn't included. This is an object offense against Mangoe's Rule-of-Thumb for Categories: categorizations one couldn't figure out from the lead are a bad idea. And as the nom says, it's a BLP problem for anyone living. Mangoe (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom attempts to minimize the association of the criminal offspring with the parent. There is no more of a BLP problem than Category:Criminals.  All cats need to be supported by verifiable content in the articles.   WP:UNDUE is an issue to be dealt with in each article, not at the category level. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't agree with the argument above - the extremely limited number of cases where it actually merits inclusion for some reason (indeed, I find it hard to think of any case where it wouldn't be UNDUE) will be nothing compared to the damage done by people slapping it on articles "because it's true", never mind if it's appropriate. Agree it's not a defining characteristic, and frankly, it's just silly. Why not "siblings of Nobel Prize winners", or "aunts of professional sports players", or whatever? For the same reason - the Nobel Prize winner is the one who's interesting by virtue of being a Nobel Prize winner. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If a reader is interested, most criminals will have a family background/early life section that typically links to the parents if they have articles. And I can see why some cases would raise interest in how the hell they were raised. But to say across-the-board that every parent is defined by the crimes of their offspring is unfounded and raises WP:BLP issues with living people. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Being related to a criminal is not defining. The category seems to have created (on 4/10/17) for Benjamin Hoskins Paddock who died in 1998, and is hardly defined by the actions of his son 19 years later; one might just as well have Category:Parents of accountants. Category:Children of criminals would be equally invalid. Oculi (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete BLP nightmare. Wrongly categorises people by association. Not a defining characteristic. AusLondonder (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's hard to imagine a worse category, or a more useless one, or one that is harder to define. If some ex-president's daughter gets arrested for a DUI, will we put that ex-president in this category?  What about Hitler's step-father:  that would require debating whether Hitler counts as a "criminal" and whether a step-father counts as a "parent".  If a person's relationship to a criminal is important, it already appears in their article.  We don't need a category for every possible fact documented on WIkipedia. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Being related to a criminal is not defining, except perhpas in cases where the parent is also a criminal, and it is effectively a family trade. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2017 (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:Futsal teams in Castile and León

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Futsal teams in Castile and León to Category:Futsal clubs in Castile and León
 * Nominator's rationale: Each article's opening sentence describes the subject as a "futsal club", so the convention of Category:Futsal clubs in Spain (part of Category:Futsal clubs) should take precedence over the convention of Category:Sports teams in Castile and León. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * rename per nom. I found the same results and see no reason for inconsistency. Mangoe (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2017 (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:Male institutions

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting male institutions


 * Nominator's rationale: Category seems basically pointless; largely empty and ill-defined (for example, caliphates were hardly all-male institutions in the way the Catholic priesthood is). It seems to serve no purpose. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete as particularly POV in intent. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as both POV and incredibly ambiguous. Do we include both College of Cardinals and Joliet Correctional Center in here? Grutness...wha?  00:47, 6 October 2017 (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.