< November 3 November 5 >

November 4

Category:Masonic composers

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 both. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations states: Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable. None of the composers in this category were notable for being Masons. RexxS (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Category:Masonic composers this is a misquote. Please stop quoting obsolete formulations of a guideline that has been changed since. Current wording: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes ... the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for" --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." is the latest formulation. The sentiment remains the same. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest? FYI: that formulation from WP:EGRS is older than the WP:COP#N updated formulation... and missing the point, since Freemasonry is not a "ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation" I don't see how switching to WP:EGRS is of any benefit to your argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the latest version has been around longer? Why would the considerations we use to determine whether or not to base a category on a subject's religion (i.e. relevance) be any less applicable to their membership of the Masons? --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By jove, yes, Francis does point to articles where classical music and Freemasonry have a very significant intersect. I am almost completely ignorant about classical music, as I'm sure some of you have managed to deduce. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of categorisation is to aid navigation between similar articles. There are good sources discussing the influence of Masonry on Mozart's work, but there the trail goes cold. A category with one or two entries and no prospect of growing is worthless, and becomes a magnet for adding inappropriate entries. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, we have Category:Masonic compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (the only such category) and Mozart is a member of Category:Freemasons. BencherliteTalk 23:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can live with that. IMO Mozart shouldn't be both in the Freemasons and the Masonic composers cats. The second would be somewhat more appropriate I think, but have no idea whether it is a viable category (per WP:SMALLCAT etc), as I'm less aware which other composers might go in the cat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did Haydn, Beethoven, Albrechtsberger and Neefe compose Masonic music? Not that I know of. Yet their - and other composers' - membership in a Masonic order forms a significant pattern. Also, you must look at it from an historical perspective. Today, the Freemasons are a kind of social club, like the Lions Clubs International or Toastmasters International. But from the late 18th century to the middle of the 19th century it was much more than that: a mystical-religious-political order that advocated significant changes in the political order of the day, and had dramatic influence on the course of European politics and the arts. So the fact that Irving Berlin was a Freemason might be insignificant, but Johann Christian Bach's membership is not. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haydn subscribed to a lodge for just two years. There is no evidence that Beethoven was ever a mason. In what way, exactly, was the membership of some other composers a 'significant pattern'? Many members were doubtless grocers or cloth merchants - would those have been 'significant patterns'?--Smerus (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I know of no grocers who were notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I do know of three cloth merchants - Thomas Whitty, Robert Owen and William Morris. All three of them might well have been Freemasons (especially Morris, whose philosophical predilections are close to Freemasonry), though the articles about them say nothing. It would be interesting to know... --Ravpapa (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa, see Category:Grocers - there are quite a few of them. And see also here for a Masonic grocer.--Smerus (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later: Actually, I do know one grocer in Wikipedia: Joseph Leutgeb, horn player and friend of Mozart, whose main business was a cheese and sausage shop. It is very likely that Leutgeb was a Freemason. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree, and I will be creating that category when this discussion is resolved.--Smerus (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (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:Euroscar award 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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For a person such Pau Gasol or Tony Parker having won this award is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. For info: There are lists at Euroscar#Award winners and Template:Euroscar. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NCAA requires its award recipients be born in the USA? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: The NCAA requires its award recipients to play for a team in the NCAA. The AAU requires its award recipients to play for a team in the AAU. Those awards are only available to people based on who they play for, which is equally selective or "suspect" than from where you're from. While the Euroscar limits its award to those born in Europe, it does not limit what teams you have to play for: you can play in the NBA, the Euroleague, the NCAA... My point is your "whites-only" claim is an absurd red herring and should not be considered as a rationale for deletion. pbp 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Purplebackpack89: many awards are only available to the those who play for the sponsoring organization; this one is available to those who don't but only based on accident of birth. Accidents of birth include such immutable traits as race, etc., which demeans and delegitimizes the award. By they way, have you found any other category for an award limited to people by location of birth regardless of where they achieved whatever made them deserving? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: You do realize that one of the award winners is Tony Parker, who is of mixed African and European heritage, right? pbp 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Purplebackpack89: straw-man. The US has a president with mixed African and European heritage, so there's no discrimination here anymore. </sarcasm> By the way, where's the non-European born folks? The NCAA has awards won by non-US born folks. Andreas Nödl is but one example. Since the NCAA bestows its awards on European-born individuals, an organization that does not reciprocate has cheapened its selection criteria to irrelevant trivialities. . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: Oh, so we should only have categories for awards open to all 7 billion people in the world?</sarcasm> I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing out of you is IDONTLIKEIT...you don't like that it's restricted only to the European-born and you refuse to acknowledge that almost any other award out there restricts who can get it in one way or another. There's no reason that we should keep awards restricted by league while deleting ones restricted by heritage. Your heritage is a defining characteristic; playing in a particular league, eh, not so much. Also, Tony Parker is hardly a "straw-man" in this as he is a very real person who is in this category. pbp 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: WP:OCAWARD which basically just refers to the more generic WP:DEFINING which basically asks whether this person "defined" by this award. Traditionally we've kept top level awards (Academy Awards) but gotten rid of low level ones (Kids Choice Awards) although that consensus is fraying. My personal rule of thumb is "is this person more famous because of the award or does it just reflect their pre-existing fame" but other editors use different standards and so can you. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: how does that translate into sports awards? pbp 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would limit to league winners, world/international competition champs, MVPs, rookies of the year and Olympic medalists not because I personally find those awards meaningful but because I hear those awards commonly mentioned in the first breath about athletes (and not just by fans who focus on obscure stats) and that would be reflected in introduction/description in Wikipedia articles and not just in a section that lists all their awards. In this case, I can't really speak to whether a continental" award is defining since there is no equivalent North American award for me to gain insights. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and Carlossuarez46's statement that it "makes it almost seem like a whites-only type award" is ridiculous. Europe is not a whites-only continent and indeed if he'd look at the bio articles in this category, they are not all white. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2015 (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:Ostrogothic Papacy

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: not done. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 04:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete most of the category per WP:OVERLAPCAT, category mainly contains popes who are already in Category:Popes. The two history articles should be upmerged to Category:History of the Papacy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be a too narrow period for categorization, taking in mind the limited amount of content (apart from the popes we have the eponymous article plus one additional history article). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have opened a discussion on Category:History of the Papacy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (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:Swedish church history

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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, target consists only of the nominated category, and besides the nominated category has an unusual format (there aren't any other "church history" categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2015 (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:Science fiction action video games

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) sst✈discuss 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as Category:Action thriller video games, not a video game genre. Video game genres are based upon gameplay elements, not its narrative. Combining the two is unnecessary and endless: science fiction first-person shooter, science fiction strategy, science fiction adventure and every other type of narrative and video game genre combination can have its own category by that logic. Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. There is already a correctly populated category called Category:Science fiction video games, which presents a thematic genre for video games. "Action" as a genre of video games is an extremely broad paint brush, to the point of meaninglessness. We use subgenres such as "First person shooter" or "Action-adventure" instead. Each of these already have valid categories in place, and the intersection is unnecessary. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments on Wikiproject page. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Ferret. Redundant category. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ferret. —zziccardi (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with the above. Totally redundant. -- Chamith (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Bertaut (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Hounder4 19:07, 5 November 2015 (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:Action thriller video games

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) sst✈discuss 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Action thriller" is not a video game genre, WP:OR by @Lembrazza:. @Rhain1999:, @Ferret:, @The1337gamer: and @ChamithN: have been undoing creator's adding of the unsourced category repeatedly for the last couple of days. Going to the source of the problem: an unnecessary category. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. "Thriller" is not a genre used in relation to video game media, so this category is simply incorrect. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments on Wikiproject page. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Not a commonly used genre name in the video game industry. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also per the above. —zziccardi (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- Chamith (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Bertaut (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 21:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Hounder4 19:08, 5 November 2015 (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:Albuquerque, New Mexico mayoral elections

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 all. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: bring in line with parent category Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city, and avoid awkward compound modifier. See also WP:Copyedit#Punctuation and Talk:Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011#Requested move 6 November 2015. Discussion moved from speedy. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every last one of these is a significant city more than large enough to grant notability to its mayors — the standard for mayors is not nearly as restrictive as the standard for ward councillors is. Most of these indeed aren't cities where we'd grant an automatic presumption of notability to the councillors (although a few are), but all of them are in the "yes to the mayor" class. So yes, these are all reasonable and acceptable topics. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2015 (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:African-Americans' civil rights activists

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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think I've ever seen this before in a category name: African-Americans' -- apostrophized, possessive? These are their activists? Is that the logic here? Plus, we only hyphenate "African-American" if it's an adjective so African-Americans' as a collective noun that possesses the activists is grammatically wrong, like 'Jewish's activists.' This was renamed back in 2013 by @BrownHairedGirl: but from what I can see she closed it wrong. The intention was to be inclusive of non-black activists but they went about it wrong, I think, after a very limited discussion. Rename per Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights, which was itself renamed and closed correctly imo three years prior by @Good Olfactory:.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (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:American Geophysical Union publications

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 as nominated. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT
This category has 1 article with no room for growth. Back in 2011, when it was created, it made perfect sense but, since then, all but one of the articles have been downmerged into Category:American Geophysical Union academic journals and I just created the parent cat and this is squeezed in between. (The AGU publishes 19 academic journals and 1 other publication.) The one non-academic publication, Eos Magazine, is already well-categorized in the magazine categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified RockMagnetist as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Magazines. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against: serves to avoid magazines being incorrectly categorized under AGU's journals. fgnievinski (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that happening with the 1 article. We just disagree over whether the extra layer of categorization is worth it to avoid that risk. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2015 (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:Women investors

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As I noted in the Afd of List of women investors, there's no glass ceiling for investing. If you have money, it doesn't make any difference whether you're a woman, a dwarf, a redhead or a member of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2015 (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:1985 establishments in Moldova

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. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic and existing category tree Category:Establishments in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic by year Tim! (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (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:Phone game 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: rename. — ξxplicit 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Change in order to correspond to the parent category Category:Mobile games and the stub template ((Mobile-game-stub)). Pegship (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (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.
More