< September 7 September 9 >

September 8

Category:Boonie Bears

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Category:Boonie Bears

Category:Red Curtain Trilogy

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 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I question the need for a category for this. Calling it the "Red Curtain Trilogy" seems to have been more of a stylistic and perhaps after-the-fact decision, as the films aren't (to my knowledge) explicitly linked. I'm also not sure this passes WP:CATDEF. A navbox and/or appropriate prose may be more effective options. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (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:Islamic personalities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible

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. MER-C 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Islamic personalities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a plain duplicate of Category:Muslim saints from the Old Testament that has been nominated for renaming on September 5, except for the fact that New Testament people have been wrongly added here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (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:Immigration and crime

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 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The very title of this category seems controversial to me. Its only purpose would seem to be to imply a link between immigration and crime. Yes, there is an article on that topic, but what was wrong with the previous categorization of that article, i.e. listed in both the "Crime" and "Immigration" categories? Deb (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep: @Deb: nothing was "wrong", except that we had no category for easy browsing of articles about this topic. Please notice that this new category is categorized in "Crime" and "Immigration", so I don't get your point. Apokrif (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apokrif (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD.

The category is added to 2019 El Paso shooting. That event was related to anti-immigration and crime. Putting it in the category of "immigration and crime" gives the wrong idea.VR talk 05:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-immigration is related to immigration. Apokrif (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apokrif is it? Does Illegal immigration to the United States and crime discuss crime by anti illegal immigration activists? That's not what I see. The category should follow the same topic as the article.VR talk 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Does Illegal immigration to the United States and crime discuss crime by anti illegal immigration activists": how is this question relevant to the current discussion? Anyway, you can add content to this article (perhaps you'll find some info in Category:American anti–illegal immigration activists; Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime would be a better place to discuss it). Apokrif (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With every crime, newspapers will publish any kind of information they can find about victims and criminals, but that does not mean that we have to create an intersection category for everything. We also do not have e.g. Category:Social class and crime for criminals from lower social classes or Category:Ethnicity and crime for criminals from certain ethnic groups. A crime does not get any worse by the fact that it has been committed by someone from a certain minority group, nor does the crime get any better if it has been committed by a 40-year-old white heterosexual man with an income of $80,000. The crime is just the crime. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Newspapers pretty much always report the ages of the people involved (victims, perpetrators, in some cases witnesses), yet we don't have Category:22-year-olds and crime, Category:38-year-olds and crime, and so on. Nor do we want those categories, obviously. TompaDompa (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:
  • "A crime does not get any worse by the fact that": wikipedians' POV is irrelevant here, only reliable sources matter. The point is that many prominent politicians, police services and activists are interested in crimes who involve or allegedly involve immigrants, and many sources talk about it.
  • "newspapers will publish any kind of information": Mentioning some information is not the same as saying that this information played a role in some debate or policy. The use of this category (or any similar category) should be restricted to the later case. See for instance 2015–16_New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#Confusion_over_role_of_"refugees".
  • Same reasoning as e.g. the categories of Gab (social network) (we don't categorize social networks in far right-related categories only because they have some far-right content).
  • @TompaDompa: do we categorize crimes in gender-related categories if reliable sources say that gender could have played a significant role in the crime, or that the crime caused protests by organizations interested in gender?
  • Apokrif (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may well be politicians and newspapers for whom it is convenient when a crime has been committed by immigrants. But Wikipedia should remain neutral and not follow the views of a specific side of the political spectrum. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say what reliable sources say. Btw, the name of the category is not "crimes committed by immigrants" (although we could create such a category if we had enough content). The current category is less about specific crimes than about their political consequences. Apokrif (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debate or policy"? I thought this was about crime. Again, it's very unclear what this category is even about and what its raison d'être is. What did you intend the inclusion criteria to be when you created this category? What you are proposing sounds more like Category:Crimes to which the reaction has touched upon immigration. This would only serve to function as a backdoor to include virtually any crime committed by an immigrant (that otherwise meets notability requirements). Surely you realize this?

    the name of the category is not "crimes committed by immigrants" (although we could create such a category if we had enough content). What is your rationale for arguing that Category:Crimes committed by immigrants is a valid category when Category:Crimes committed by asylum seekers and Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants were both deleted as the result of CfD discussions? That's bordering on WP:G4.

    Apokrif, I must ask you: Do you understand why the previous CfD discussions of the related categories (1 2 3 4) resulted in deletion? You say wikipedians' POV is irrelevant here, only reliable sources matter. The point is that many prominent politicians, police services and activists are interested in crimes who involve or allegedly involve immigrants, and many sources talk about it. just as E.M.Gregory said When an asylum-seeker actually does commit a crime, it gets international headlines because of the status (asylum seeker) of the perpetrator. See: Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen; 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing. It is because the proclivity to crime on the part of asylum seekers is so loudly alleged/denied/suspected/investigated/discussed that it is appropriate to have a category. back in 2016, Stefanomione said The crimes are notable fact, as they get a lot of media coverage and mold considerably public opinion about the migrant crisis in 2016, and Icewhiz said While we might not like the POV, that is not policy. What is relevant is whether the category is discusssed by sources. It is quite clear that crimes by illegal immigrants are discussed by sources and are part of a much wider immigration debate. back in 2019. You say Anti-immigration is related to immigration., just as E.M.Gregory said Note that the category contains both attacks on migrants who arrived during the crisis and Attacks by such migrants. back in 2018. Do you understand why those discussions resulted in deletion in spite of those arguments? You assert that The current category is less about specific crimes than about their political consequences. as though that's somehow self-evident (or even true – I'm not sure what makes you so confident that that's the case when it's not clear from the WP:CATNAME or the main page Immigration and crime, besides of course being the creator of the category); by doing so, you're functionally arguing that this should be Category:Crimes associated with immigration in all but name. I'll quote WP:OCASSOC: The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association may fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. When Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis has been deleted twice as a result of CfD discussions, what's your rationale for arguing that we should have this category, which is even vaguer? TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To put it simply: I created the category only because we already had articles (most notably, the category's main article) on this topic. The category's content should, roughly, match what it's main article says.
  • "although we could create such a category if we had enough content).)) What is your rationale for arguing that Category:Crimes committed by immigrants is a valid category" "We could create X if some condition is met" <> "X is a valid category" (anyway, I'm not currently interested in such a category and I am not claiming we should create it).
  • Anyway, thanks for mentioning other discussions which could help us. Do the categories you're referring to also have main articles like Immigration and crime, the existence of which is (AFAIK) not disputed? (I am not saying Immigration and crime could not be improved, renamed or forked) ?
  • Apokrif (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your entire argument is the existence of the article Immigration and crime (and its subpages)? I'm sorry, but that does nothing to address the objections that have been raised. The objection (well, the main one, being a WP:POV magnet notwithstanding) is that this violates Wikipedia's guideline on WP:Overcategorization, which is an objection that the editors arguing against deletion have barely even attempted to address. This is an issue that is directly tied to the still extremely unclear inclusion criteria for this category.

    You keep saying to look at Immigration and crime for what this category is about, but that's basically dodging the question as it doesn't actually clarify the inclusion criteria. Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration. defines the topic and the scope of the article, but it's about as clear as mud with regard to the inclusion criteria for the category. Articles and categories are not the same and do not function in the same way, so a clearly-defined scope for an article does not necessarily translate into clearly-defined inclusion criteria for a category. The inclusion criteria could be any crime committed by an immigrant, but WP:CONSENSUS has twice (1 2) determined that we don't want that kind of category, and it violates WP:NONDEFINING. It could be any crime committed by or against an immigrant, but that violates WP:ARBITRARYCAT. It could be any crime related to/associated with immigration, but consensus has twice (1 2) determined that we don't want that kind of category, and it violates WP:OCASSOC. It could be your nebulous "played a role in some debate or policy"/"political consequences", but that violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT because it is ultimately a judgment call whether that applies when it comes to any particular article (and disagreement among editors is very likely). It could also be only Immigration and crime and its subpages (currently only Immigration and crime in Germany and Illegal immigration to the United States and crime)—which unlike the other possibilities doesn't actually violate WP:OC (it's a WP:SMALLCAT, but it could conceivably grow)—but of course that's not how editors are going to use it, they are going to add individual crimes to it either because they think that's what the category is about or because they think that's what the category should be about, and we're stuck with a category that exists as a WP:POV magnet (and therefore needs constant cleanup to keep out articles on individual crimes) while providing little or no benefit to anybody. Those are all valid interpretations of what Category:Immigration and crime could mean, but they are very different from each other (and are all fundamentally flawed). We can't have a category where it's not even clear what type of content should be included, let alone how to determine whether any individual article belongs to the type of content that should be included; that's worse than useless.

    The existence or non-existence of main articles is a red herring; the problem isn't that the topic doesn't exist, but that this isn't suitable as a category. This meets WP:DELREASON#11: Categories representing overcategorization any way you slice it (apart from "only Immigration and crime and its subpages", see above for why that's a terrible idea anyway), and it hasn't even been established how to slice it out of all the possible ways to do it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll add that if this category is intended to solely include Immigration and crime and its subpages, the appropriate thing to do is to instead create the category Category:Immigration and crime by country, as Vice regent suggested above. This would not lead to the same kind of chronic misuse issues. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2020 (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:Rural municipalities of Gandaki Pradesh (etc)

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. MER-C 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with most other child categories of Category:Rural municipalities of Nepal. ("Of" seems OK for that top, country-level cat... or perhaps not?) PamD 12:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - sounds uncontroversial. Deb (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - no problem.  👤Raju💌 01:31, 9 September 2020 (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:Middle English language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Category:Middle English language

Alvernia Crusaders

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 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alvernia changed its athletic nickname from Crusaders to Golden Wolves in 2017. See the university's official press release. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2020 (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.

The Three Bears

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. MER-C 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Goldilocks and the Three Bears and the main article is Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The Three Bears redirects to Goldilocks and the Three Bears. There are other meanings of "The Three Bears". Some of the articles are about works that focus on the Three Bears as opposed to Goldilocks, but in general I think it's best to have consistency here in the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (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:Honorifics (Allah)

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 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Honorifics (Allah) to Category:Honorifics of Allah
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know why the current name is formatted as it is. I propose just making it straightforward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2020 (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:Former CBC Television affiliates

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Category:Former CBC Television affiliates

More