Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 26

< July 25 July 27 >

July 26

Category:British motorcycles listed by marque

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Category:British motorcycles listed by marque

Category:Shettleston F.C. players

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 to Category:Glasgow United F.C. players. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with recent name change of club. Article on club was recently moved from Shettleston F.C. to Glasgow United F.C. Jellyman (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:40, 27 July 2021 (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:Cisgender Wikipedians

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. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a very helpful user category since well over 95% of Wikipedians would potentially qualify for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert - Are you speaking of categories like Wikipedians who are Christian, Wikipedians from the United States, and so forth? {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. He probably means Wikipedians with two eyes, Wikipedians who breath air. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking of categories that according to analysis done very recently cover over 99% of the world population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am more speaking of categories that define people in ways that they do not imagine they are defined. People think of themselves as male and female, and lots of other things, but this is a clear defining by what they are not, when the not being that is so common it is view as not a thing. Also since the thing they are not equalls what they inherently are, This groups together people who just accept they way they are, and people who have struggled with it, but for a variety of reasons have not tried to change and alter it. Basically it assumes people are a group on a level that they do not see themselves as a group, but inherently see themselves as two distrinct groups and making that all one group just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2021 (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:Thomas Metcalfe (Kentucky politician)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 10#Category:Thomas Metcalfe (Kentucky politician)

Category:Genderless Wikipedians

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/delete. It appears that the only person in this category is not averse to the proposed merge; main consensus is to delete. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicate categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 26 July 2021 (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.

American politicians by 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: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were deleted here in 2011 and have recently been re-created. The same rationale applies, largely WP:EGRS, which states, "... an '(ethnicity) politicians' category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." They are eligible for G4 speedy deletion, but since it has been a decade, I thought I would open a new discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the 2011 arguments are still valid - possibly more so, as this sort of ethnicity seems less significant in US politics now. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The US has a long history of 'white ethnic politicians,' which has been written about as extensively as that of African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or other groups. Dozens of books, articles, and other works have been written about each of these categories and their unique history in US politics. These histories are well documented, easily findable by Google Scholar or Google Books, and have been written about for decades. I am not sure what else is necessary for an intersection to be considered encylopedic. Can the nom or someone else explain to me the difference here?--User:Namiba 14:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that European ancestry is important to know. I only just saw the similar issue from 10 years ago, but I made them because they deserve just as much recognition as the Hispanic, African, and Asian ancestries: along with their sub categories. If there needs to be a change, then maybe we could just list people up to their grandparents as after that the ancestry does start to become arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.117.158 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the same arguments that applied ten years ago still apply today. And impossible to maintain: Mario Cuomo is in the category, but his son Andrew Cuomo is not, to cite just one of many thousands of examples. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Greek/Italian/Polish/Armenian people in US politics constitute a unique subgroup which have been covered by multiple in-depth sources? Yes. Those arguments 10 years ago did not address this fundamental question so pointing to that old discussion is not helpful. Just in 2020, the number of Greek Americans elected to office was notable. Journal articles have been published on the subject. There are even groups advocating bloc voting of Greeks in the United States. So I will ask again: how does this differ from African-Americans or Mexican-Americans or Chinese-Americans in terms of the standards of notability?--User:Namiba 14:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to this can be at least three-fold: WP:RS would need to be put forward to argue that these identity lines are organized in a way that carries any political weight (other than merely compiling lists of individuals), the links provided above have the flavor of the fringe, and bloc-voting of Greek Americans looks like a snowball. It is fair to say that the groups above, while of course having strong cultural identities, have pretty merged into the American mainstream. Place Clichy (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The flavor of fringe? A book published by Routledge is not fringe. [1] This publication about the political behavior of Greek-Americans is not fringe, either. Nor is this well-cited article in a major academic journal. Neither are the sources I linked to below.--User:Namiba 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading WP:OCEGRS. It states "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." As I have pointed out, these ARE unique cultural topics in their own right. Could a substantial head article be written about Green Americans in politics? I think so given the sources provided. Here are a few more [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Regarding Armenians, there is also List of American politicians of Armenian descent and this NBC News article from 2020. was even a book published in 2017 by Berkeley Press about the Armenian lobby in the United States. I am not sure what else we need to have to show that these are unique cultural topics in their own right.--User:Namiba 14:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Polish American vote (which already has a full length article), I don't think more needs to be written. Nor should anything need to be written about Italian Americans in politics, but I will leave these links here for reference: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].--User:Namiba 14:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from further analysis of Namiba's findings. In particular, if consensus determines that these categories should be kept, WP:EGRS#Special subcategories would need to be modified to reflect such a result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not fully sure that WP:OCEGRS applies here. Ethnicity refers to the social group one belongs to, while descent refers to one's ancestors' nationalities. Those are not necessarily the same thing. Nevertheless I maintain that the intersection between someone's occupation and their ancestors' nationalities is wholly trivial. The fact that people write about books or articles about the political opinions and voting behaviour of people with the same descent in general has nothing to do with a particular politician with that descent. And bear in mind that this is about categorizing particular politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While in general I agree with Marcocapelle's points above re ethnicity/profession splits, I feel that being an elected head of state is a reasonable exception to the rule, especially since several politicians (e.g., Kennedy, Obama) have been at least partly defined by their ethnicity. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the melting pot principle" mean here? That everyone of European descent is treated equally in the United States? Keep in mind we are building an encyclopedia and that we rely upon reliable sources. Italian-American politicians were treated differently than Anglo-American politicians for many decades. Are you advocating we just erase this distinction?--User:Namiba 19:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of virtually every ethnicity, gender, race, and sexuality category. Why delete these but not others?--User:Namiba 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nomination. They're notable as people of European ancestry, but not as politicians. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. This especially applies to politicians who are much more likely to have had other careers than individuals in some other professions, and so such categorization leads to a true mess. Now if we could only convince people that when someone falls in 8 or more ancestry categories none of them are defining and they should be placed in none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that I mean, we can identify 8 or more places their ancestors came from. The x American of y descent categories are justified for children of immigrants, and for people who are in some ways immersed in the culture of their ancestors, but when you have a person like me who can be placed in Welsh, English, Scottish, Irsih, Dutch, French, German, Polish, and Swedish ancestry caegories none of them are defining. All my great-grandparents were born in the US but only half their parents were, although I have to admit I am split between including Swedish or Austro-Hungarian Jewish from what was then Czechosloavakia, then the Soviet Union and now Ukraine, because I am not sure if I should trace by my grandmother's DNA, or by the father who raised her. I think I have seen people placed in even more ancestry categories than that. Actually arguably I would also go in the Canadian descent category because I do have ancestors who were born in Canada. One of them, John Pack, even has an article here in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also have ancestors who are rumored to have been Cherokee, which may in fact mean they were African-American, or may mean they were of Virginia Native American descent and someone was confued, or may just be a false rumor that someone invented because it sounded good. One of them used to have an article on Wikipedia and even there it was admitted that despite rumors, no one ever trated that person in the 1830s or other times as if they were other than a white American of European descent, so who knows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2021 (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:Television stations in the Rio Grande Valley

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Category:Television stations in the Rio Grande Valley

Category:Wikipedians taking a break from Adopt-a-user

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. – Fayenatic London 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there is a clear collaborative benefit in the other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians involved with Adopt-a-user, I don't see what purpose this one has, or how this category has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. This is too similar to a not-based and/or a "Wikipedians by activity status" category, both of which have clear precedent in favor of deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 26 July 2021 (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:The Beatles and radio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 10#Category:The Beatles and radio

Category:The Beatles and television

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Category:The Beatles and television

Category:Frisian scientists

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. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Difficult to see how Frisian, as an ethnicity, impacts on the work of a scientist. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could make the same argument for the entire Category:People by ethnicity and occupation tree, but I havent because I think some ethnicities are considered more significant than others, mostly because some have a history of persecution, and so their ethnicity has impacted on their lives and their notability. We could also extend the list of ethnicities to include Cornish, Swabian, Yorkshire etc., but we have to exercise judgement. Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 26 July 2021 (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:Opposition to Fidel Castro

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 10#Category:Opposition to Fidel Castro

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_26