Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 9

< October 8 October 10 >

October 9

Category:List of International Civil Societies

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. Timrollpickering 10:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:List of International Civil Societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Civil Societies based in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Civil Societies based in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These three categories are not needed. They have the same parents and each contains the same single article Pan African Forum of Civil Societies, which has its own more worthwhile category Category:Pan African Forum of Civil Societies and other appropriate categories. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 9 October 2018 (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:List of tide gauges

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. If not merged, it should be renamed without "List of". – Fayenatic London 13:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Have already linked Cascais tide gauge to Category:Aids to navigation and Category:TidesRoundtheworld (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2018 (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:List of Bulgarian-language publishers

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. Timrollpickering 10:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't find any hierarchy of publishing companies by language, e.g. within Category:Mass media by language or Category:Categories by language. The category is wrongly named as it does not contain lists; it might as well be merged to just one parent, Category:Publishing companies of Bulgaria. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 9 October 2018 (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:List of stadiums in China

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small categories, not useful for navigation. Note: if not merged, the China one should be renamed to "Lists…". – Fayenatic London 10:45, 9 October 2018 (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:Hungarian Reform rabbis

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: keep. ℯxplicit 03:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two pages actually belong in Category:Neolog rabbis and have been recategorized accordingly. The remaining page makes this a SMALLCAT and I don't believe that Reform Judaism is significant enough in Hungary in order to populate a category for Hungarian Reform rabbis. Catrìona (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2018 (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.

Music organisations by country

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. Timrollpickering 10:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
89 more categories
Nominator's rationale: to standardise on "Music organi[sz]ations based in Foo".
These are all subcats of Category:Music organizations by country. The parent cats are Category:Arts organizations by country, Category:Music organizations, and Category:Organizations by subject and country.
The convention of Category:Organizations by subject and country is "Foo organi[sz]ations based in Bar", as in Category:Arts organizations by country. However, this set of 110 categories currently consists of 20 correctly-named "Music organi[sz]ations based in Foo", with the other 90 an assortment of "Musical organi[sz]ations based in Foo", "Music organi[sz]ations in Foo", "Fooish music(al) organi[sz]ations". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I@Thinker78: it is a placeholder. See Foobar for an comprehensive explanation.
In this case "Foo" will be relevant country name, as you can see in the listings. E.g. in the first entry, "foo" is "Afghanistan". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I is hard to know what the intentions are with the other categories, but my quick scans of a few sample cats didn't identify any orgs which were not based in the ountry.
There may be some I have missed, but the current ambiguity is unhelpful. So I suggest doing the rename, and dealing with any outliers if they arise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a parent category is generally Category:Organizations based in Foo, eg Category:Organizations based in Denmark and subcats should follow suit (using s/z per the parent, for simplicity - so Denmark should use 'z'). Oculi (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: in each of the 90 categories above, I retained the existing spelling of "organi[sz]ation". There may be a case for changing some of them, but if we start doing that here, this discussion coukd get v complex.
Please can we just do one thing at a time, and leave the s/z issue to a further round if anyone wants to pursue it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. I certainly don't feel like looking through all 90. Oculi (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not "Music organizations in Foo"? Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thinker78: because as noted in the nomination, The convention of Category:Organizations by subject and country is "Foo organi[sz]ations based in Bar", as in Category:Arts organizations by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Based in' was decided at cfd in 2007. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we are gradually moving to "based in" with all organisation categories. Tim! (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though we might need to think about how we deal with organisations which are involved with music from a country other than the one they are based in. Rathfelder (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2018 (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 associated with torture

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. Timrollpickering 10:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCASSOC and also a small category (few subcats). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2018 (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:Russian people of Huguenot 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: procedural close. The discussion was also created at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 9. Since that is the venue for review of deletions, it would probably be best to consolidate the discussion there. Please discuss at DRV page linked. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the morning of 9 October 2018, I discovered that my Category Page of Russian people of Huguenots Descent had been deleted on 6 October by CydeBot. Apparently, from 27th of September of this year, there was a discussion initiated by Good Ole Factory to do so. Five experts chimed in and encouraged the deletion along with many other pages created by myself and others.

Here’s the funny thing: Over the last year or so Wikipedia has sent me messages inviting me to ArbCom 2017 or invitation to the Tea House. What I didn’t see was a simple, professionally courteous Wikipedia email notifying me that my page, along those created by other contributors, was about to be deleted. Given this bit of evidence I’ll confidently assert that no other creator or contributor was notified. This is an unimaginable bit of self-centered and myopic laziness on the editor’s part. That is unless the true goal was to limit discussion and the free exchange of ideas.

Tracing the discussion page (that again I was unaware and definitely not invited to) I find out that “Good Ole Boy” has taken it upon himself to delete _every_ Huguenot Category page, from North America to Europe and beyond. A grand total of five contributors now decide the fate of Categories that multiple contributors, over the years, spent endless man-hours finding and connecting.

What passes for a rationale is exemplified by the following five “experts”:

Good Ole Factory, (who proudly talks about his Museum of Stuffed Insults on his page) expertly stating that this is not a “defining” ethnicity.

BearCat’s assertion that his partial Huguenot ancestry has no effects on him. A scientific survey of _one_ (plus or minus 2% I guess).

Macrocappele- Not defining for a 20 or 21st century People.” (According to whom?)

Peterkingiron (expert on Windmills and Iron) would “not expect Huguenot ancestry to be significant in the biography of a person active even in the late 18th century; certainly not more recently.”

What a wonderful example of Group Think. Of course that’s what happens when, by accident or design, you avoid contacting anyone who might have a dissenting opinion. An easy counter argument to this collective mindset that this ancestry has no effect would be the numerous scholarly volumes that suggest otherwise. If actually verifying research or opinions in that way was too hard, they could just Google all the various heritage and lineage organizations that exist, many with a Wikipedia page. If they actually bothered to read Wikipedia articles before deleting them (via Bot) they might notice a handful of these organizations are listed in the Wikipedia article on Huguenots. An article that states that many refugee descendants still have a sense of identity.

The handful of experts, all patting each other on the back, make other logical fallacies. One is equating the percentage of ethnicity being a determining factor, remarking on declining percentages of Huguenot ancestry. Are we talking historical reference here’s or a JK Rowling novel about someone being “half-Muggle”? Was there some kind of bigoted, racial purity guideline for a Category page? There are also examples of persons reflecting on their heritage all the way into the 20th Century and it still has effects to the present day. What kind of “Either/Or” logical fallacy states you can only be one or another ancestry? Many (arguably, most) Huguenot descendants, myself included, are descended from many different ethnicities and nationalities. Actually, the once-available Huguenot categories emphasize that point, a point apparently too simple for that collective gentlemen to grasp.

Unlike these fine gentlemen, all I can claim is that I wrote a Master’s Thesis on the Huguenots. In doing so I was ably assisted by the National Huguenot Society, to whom I also presented a paper on the Huguenots in the Russian Military. While I firmly agree that Wikipedia should never be used as a source of original research I think it provides an outstanding tool for a researcher (or just the thoughtfully curious) in finding leads and connections to primary and secondary research. It definitely helped me, and also helped many others judging from the multiple other contributors that we could all _once_ easily see.

So is Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit (providing of course, that they follow its community standards) or should it be more accurately described as “The online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, but that a few snobbish elite really control, free of any honest attempts at public discourse or actually seeking conflicting views.”? All decided in TEN DAYS OR LESS. Right now, given the high-handed disservice just done to myself and other faithful contributors, who just had their work destroyed, with nary an attempt made at their input, I’ll vote resoundingly for the later. This confirmed by the sheer arrogance of their respective pages (Tell me, does “good faith” involve someone threatening to go all “SkyNet” on people?)

There is an even greater irony. If, for the foreseeable future, someone actually does an online search for “British” or “Dutch” or even “Russian” and adds the word “Huguenot” one of the first hits that will still come up is the Wikipedia Category page. Pages that don’t exist anymore due to a small handful of individuals taking action without any effort to hear a dissenting opinion. Not your best moment, Wikipedia. Not at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur, particularly with ". . . that’s what happens when, by accident or design, you avoid contacting anyone who might have a dissenting opinion." My own complaint got disappeared. Eddaido (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_9&oldid=872070524"