Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10
September 10
Category:Towns in Ternopil Oblast
- Propose merging Category:Towns in Ternopil Oblast to Category:Cities in Ternopil Oblast
- Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerging to Category:Cities in Ternopil Oblast. In Ukraine, there is no formal separation into cities and towns. Sometimes urban-type settlements are erroneously called "towns", but all entities in this category are cities. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, if that is the case, Category:Towns in Ukraine by classification and subcategories may require renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I will look into this. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support, while I am certainly not an expert in Ukrainian nomenclature, I note that there are very few "towns in Ukraine" categories, so I am supporting this if only for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Games with force feedback support
- Nominator's rationale: A non-defining category for a very common game feature. Additionally, the parent article was deleted by AfD. IceWelder [✉] 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I linked to Haptic_technology#Force_feedback to the description in the category. --Bawanio (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- This does not affect the category being non-defining, though. See also WP:Defining. IceWelder [✉] 14:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the related AFF came to a clear consensus that this isn’t a defining feature and I don’t see how adding Haptic_technology#Force_feedback to the category changes that.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Set indices on tropical cyclones
- Nominator's rationale: To match parent Category:Set indices on storms, following renaming of subcats at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_1#Tropical_storm_"disambiguation"_categories. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @R'n'B: did you intend some distinction by renaming those subcats as "set index articles" rather than "set indices" like the higher categories? If not, they could be added here and renamed again. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I did not intend any distinction. Either form appears correct to me; "set index articles" is perhaps more accessible to the casual reader, but "indices" works too. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Greek politics
- Propose deleting Category:15th century in Greek politics
- Propose deleting Category:16th century in Greek politics
- Propose deleting Category:17th century in Greek politics
- Propose deleting Category:18th century in Greek politics
- Nominator's rationale: delete, Greek politics did not exist until 1830 when Greece became independent of the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Capital District, New York to Category:Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Education in New York's Capital District to Category:Education in Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Private schools in New York's Capital District to Category:Private schools in Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:People from Capital District, New York to Category:People from Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Sports in New York's Capital District to Category:Transportation in Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Capital District, New York to Category:Television stations in Capital District (New York)
- Propose renaming Category:Transportation in New York's Capital District to Category:Transportation in Capital District (New York)
- Nominator's rationale: Harmonise category names with each other and with the lead article, which was recently moved (without discussion) to Capital District (New York). – Fayenatic London 12:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:People fined in the Partygate scandal
- Nominator's rationale: Precision, NPOV, and naming consistency per WP:CATNAME. 'Fined' is ambiguous and inaccurate as these are civil, not criminal penalties, and 'fine' is more generally used for criminal penalties in the UK, and 'fine' is not used in the article - it is always 'fixed penalty notice'. 'Scandal' is subjective. Other similar categories use 'Recipients of something' rather than 'People who had something done to them'. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nondefining for all members (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is this category necessary at all? It seems a very narrow topic, also considering that it does not concern a criminal offense. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. If kept, the proposed new name is better than the current name. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Does not seem definint. If kept, would prefer Category:Recipients of a fixed penalty notice related to Partygate to match the name of the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm persuaded too that, per WP:NONDEFINING, it is non-defining. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and rename as proposed. I'm amazed anyone who follows British politics at all can regard this as non-defining. Do any of those calling it non-defining in fact live in the UK or follow things here? There are over 100 people potentially in this, but most are a) so far not notable, and b) it is so far unknown who received many of the penalties. The category will probably expand, and this will follow recipients for the rest of their careers. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rename -- The title should be shorter. Category:People fined for Partygate affair might do. The full explanation can go in a headnote. I am not wholly clear, but the penalty notices were issued by the police and appeal would be to the magistrates court, not the county court or a tribunal. This is much what happens with minor motoring offences. Yes, they are technically not treated as criminal convictions, but I do not think they have been decriminalised in the way that parking enforcement has been. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends
- Nominator's rationale: This category is WP:NONDEFINING, as for most of the people in the category, they are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer, but are notable in their own right. In particular, many of the people in this category are footballers themselves, so being in a relationship with a footballer is not at all unusual or defining. Also, doesn't have a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, as should it include e.g. ex-wifes and ex-girlfriends, and BLP issues around keeping this up-to-date Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Having a blanket category covering only female partners of footballers, many of whom are notable in their own right, is non-defining. According to a note on the talk page, the page was originally intended only to cover WAGs, i.e. individuals who've been explicitly referred to in sources as falling under that umbrella. Well if that's the case it ought to be renamed to Category:WAGs and ruthlessly pruned so that only sourced explicitly-known WAGs are included. I'd also argue that definition is non-neutral too, but at least it would be more fitting for a category. — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be both non-defining and a BLP gossip-mongering nightmare. Spike 'em (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - subcat of Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, renamed at cfd from Category:WAGs in 2008 or so and discussed at cfd many times. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The existence of a parent category does not preclude the issues with this particular subcategory. The other subcategories seem to actually be about people known for being "WAGs", the association football category is just anyone who's ever dated a footballer, which is neither encyclopedic nor a defining characteristic for any of them. WP:OSE isn't a valid reason to keep this. Also, the parent category should be Category:WAGs anyway, as that matches the article title (so WP:C2D should apply to it). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- This exact rename proposal was rejected unanimously at cfd in 2017: 2017 April 9#Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends. WAGs was renamed by cfd in 2008 in this discussion: 2008 June 6#Category:WAGs. Nominators should cite previous discussions when bringing proposals to cfd (due diligence). Oculi (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- The existence of a parent category does not preclude the issues with this particular subcategory. The other subcategories seem to actually be about people known for being "WAGs", the association football category is just anyone who's ever dated a footballer, which is neither encyclopedic nor a defining characteristic for any of them. WP:OSE isn't a valid reason to keep this. Also, the parent category should be Category:WAGs anyway, as that matches the article title (so WP:C2D should apply to it). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the relevance of this category for people whose notability and media references are often/usually tied to their relationship with a footballer, but in it are overwhelmingly those being categorised on a non-defining characteristic. There's also no denying that misused in this way it's an embarrassingly sexist categorisation. Not sure what the solution to this might be, perhaps renamed in some way to make it clearer that simply dating a footballer once doesn't mean being categorised this way. The suggestion of "WAG" is along the right lines, but the problem with that is it is a term little known outside the UK. I also realise that this, and similar categorised have been discussed before here. I'd suggest that this is indication of it being a problematic categorisation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Whether you like it or not, the acronym WAG and the term "wives and girlfriends" are widely used in the media. It makes no sense to delete it. Totally irrelevant whether the person is famous/notable in their own right. If they weren't, they would not have a Wiki article in the first place. Plus they are plenty of articles were the subject is included in categories that are not the main defining category. Examples would include nationality categories, year of birth and death categories and peoples occupation categories. Djln Djln (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is used in the media to describe a few people, not most of the 200+ people listed in this category, and certainly has never been used for female sportspeople that are in same sex relationships with female footballers. A specific category limited only to people called WAGs in reliable sources would possibly be acceptable, but this categorisation including people who once dated a footballer 5 years ago is not- it's a BLP violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Spike 'em. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per keepers and previous discussions - I'm very dubious about "for most of the people in the category, they are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer". With a very few exceptions, such as Posh Spice and Pamela Anderson, their notability at least began from their WAG role, and despite the best efforts of their agents, has mostly remained so. In any case that a person is "known primarily for" simply is not a requirement for categorization. The category is not called Category:Current Association footballers' wives and girlfriends, so there is no issue with "exes", any more than there is with nearly all our people cats. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at any of them? I have removed from the category today dozens of women who are notable in their own right, but have been categorised here simply because of who they married/dated once. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- A) yes, I looked at lots, B) whether they are "notable in their own right" is entirely irrelevant to whether they should be in this category. That depends on whether it is "defining" for them - a completely different thing. If you haven't grasped that you shouldn't be doing cfd. C) It is considered extremely bad form to gut categories while a discussion is ongoing. I will have to check your edits - excuse me if I use rollback when they need reverting. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- A)Then you would have seen plenty who are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer. Which you said you doubted. B) I understand the difference perfectly, if you read what I say above. C) I started removing these people before someone else raised this discussion. And I take it you didn't find any that needed reverting? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as just plain stupid. I don't care if tabloids make a big deal of this stuff, they're not by any means the paragon of establishing notability or engaging in discretion as to the significance of reality. In short, a non-defining thing that too much space is devoted to by the worst type of press in the world. And if someone is only notable for this, then their article should be outright deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED. oknazevad (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it obviously is defining for some celebrities in the UK (and other countries), and pretending it's not is disingenuous. The role of Wikipedia shouldn't be to pick and choose what people are famous for.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not something we should see in a respectable encyclopaedia. It’s demeaning, tacky and belongs to a bygone era of drunken footballers like Gazza and Merson. Not in 2022, thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I checked some 15 articles at random and this was defining for none of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Johnbod, for many of these people (Colleen Rooney a prime example) their notability first arose from them being a prominent WAG, so it is defining. GiantSnowman 16:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep an encyclopaedia's role is not to have a stance, but to merely document and describe. It is simply a fact many of these people under this category are notable mostly for being or having been the wife of a present or past footballer. And, let's be clear, this is not merely a UK thing - there are plenty of similar examples in Italy as well, to name one. --Angelo (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Funeral directors of Austria
- Propose merging Category:Funeral directors of Austria to Category:Death care companies
- Propose merging Category:Funeral directors of Australia to Category:Death care companies
- Nominator's rationale: merge, ambiguous category names that may well refer to individuals rather than companies. The categories are not well populated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- In the UK Funeral director seems to be used as much for companies as individuals. Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not for long, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean in the real world. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- At some point I suspected that too, but then I read Funeral director which does not make any mention of usage for companies. At the very least we should conclude that the term is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Object "Death care company" is a very ugly American euphemism. The problem is that the two categories nominated each have one member, so that an upmerge might be an appropriate solution, but I could only accept that if the target was renamed to (say) Category:Funeral companies. Looking at its content, the British and Australian subcats are Funeral directors; two others are "funeral homes", so that the target ought to contain the word funeral. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I will happily nominate the target for renaming but that can't go in this very discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, 'Death Care company' is indeed a very ugly euphemism which I've never seen used before. They're certainly called Funeral Directors or Undertakers in British English. Unless the above two categories have been emptied by somebody, I would suggest they're deleted as SMALLCATs. But if there is a need to distinguish between people and companies, couldn't the category be called Category:Funeral directors (companies) of FOOland etc.? Sionk (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support - these are both subcats with 1 article of Category:Death care companies and should certainly be upmerged. Those who object to the naming of the target should take it to cfd. Oculi (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone would have success in changing the name of the top category, for an American website (assuming Americans call them Death Care companies), but for the sub-categories it's approporiate to use the local term. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, but that is not what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone would have success in changing the name of the top category, for an American website (assuming Americans call them Death Care companies), but for the sub-categories it's approporiate to use the local term. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Campaigns and movements in Wales
- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that doesn't fit into any existing category trees. Though it is unclear to me at what point a campaign becomes a movement (or visa versa) I would argue it's better to categorise these articles in the existing category frameworks at the moment. Sionk (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Category:Campaigns and movements in Wales better includes categories such as Campaign for a Wales cricket team, Campaign to change the WRU logo which are not really political movements or campaigns. Political movements such as Welsh independence could be included in both "Category:Campaigns and movements in Wales" and Category:Political movements in Wales. I am however, open to alternative suggestions or discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Titus Gold (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- If split, we would rather need to split by political versus non-political. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is the top category Category:Campaigning ...though aren't most campaigns political in some way? Sionk (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Campaigning is a subcategory of Category:Activism, while subCategory:Political campaigning is part of the tree of Category:Politics. That seems all very appropriate. I agree with Titus Gold that Campaign for a Wales cricket team and Campaign to change the WRU logo do not directly belong in a politics category. Alternatively, the category might be renamed into Category:Nationalist campaigns in Wales, as such that may become part of the politics tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- All sensible proposals. Titus Gold (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Campaigning is a subcategory of Category:Activism, while subCategory:Political campaigning is part of the tree of Category:Politics. That seems all very appropriate. I agree with Titus Gold that Campaign for a Wales cricket team and Campaign to change the WRU logo do not directly belong in a politics category. Alternatively, the category might be renamed into Category:Nationalist campaigns in Wales, as such that may become part of the politics tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is the top category Category:Campaigning ...though aren't most campaigns political in some way? Sionk (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Fiction about astronomical locations
- Propose renaming Category:Fiction about astronomical locations to Category:Fiction about astronomical objects
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional astronomical locations to Category:Fictional astronomical objects
- Nominator's rationale: To match the real-world Category:Astronomical objects; space stations are not currently in the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- No opposition Drawn here by User_talk notice from nom, I have no objection, but also have little familiarity with the relevant naming standards. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 03:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment that isn't correct. Pavonis Mons isn't an astronomical object, but it is an astronomical location located on the astronomical object called Mars. There is fiction written about this location. Similary, we should not narow the scope of these categories, since there are fiction set at a specific location, and not across many locations on a celestial body. We seem to be missing a category heirarchy for space locations (ie. Tranquility Base, Wright Brothers Field, Category:Surface features of bodies of the Solar System ) which might have astronmical objects as a subcategory. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of these examples is fictional, so they do not seem very relevant in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- We would be narrowing the scope of the category tree by excluding any articles on fiction about astronomical locations that are not celestial bodies. Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel" is set in Tycho Crater, and not the entire Moon. There are stories already out there written about specific extraterrestrial locations that are not just a generic setting on a celestial body or several parts of one, but about a specific place. Similarly there is a lot more fiction about non-terrestrial locations which are fictional that don't cover entire selestial bodies or several parts of one. The first category in this nomination is about fiction about locations, which would deal with real places. The second category in this nomination is about fictional ones, such as found in many a short story in the standard scifi pulp magazines (ie. Asimov's, Analog). Though instead of "astronomical" perhaps it should use "space", because of the fictional aspect -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of articles that would be misclassified? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- The first category (and its subcategories), shouldn't that become "Fiction set on" instead of "Fiction about"? I am noticing subCategory:Fiction set on moons and that sounds more precise than Category:Fiction about moons. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per nom for consistency. Jontesta (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Consequences of wars
- Propose renaming Category:Consequences of wars to Category:Effects of war
- Nominator's rationale: Name it as a WP:topic category rather than a set category, and move the article Effects of war down into it from the parent to be its main article. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Moorish people
- Propose deleting Category:Moorish people
- Propose deleting Category:Moorish people by century
- Propose merging Category:7th-century Moorish people to Category:7th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:8th-century Moorish people to Category:8th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:9th-century Moorish people to Category:9th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:10th-century Moorish people to Category:10th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:11th-century Moorish people to Category:11th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:12th-century Moorish people to Category:12th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:13th-century Moorish people to Category:13th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:14th-century Moorish people to Category:14th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:15th-century Moorish people to Category:15th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:16th-century Moorish people to Category:16th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:17th-century Moorish people to Category:17th-century Muslims
- Propose merging Category:18th-century Moorish people to Category:18th-century Muslims
- Nominator's rationale: merge, Moors is an outdated and ambiguous term. Most of the articles are already in more specific subcategories, e.g. for Al-Andalus, Morocco and Ifriqiya. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Moorish women
- Propose deleting Category:Moorish women
- Propose deleting Category:Moorish women by century
- Propose deleting Category:15th-century Moorish women
- Propose deleting Category:16th-century Moorish women
- Nominator's rationale: delete, Moorish is an outdated and ambiguous term. There is no need to merge, the tree contains two articles, one already in Category:Women of the Emirate of Granada, the other already in Category:16th-century Moroccan women. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Category:15th-century Moorish women has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Municipality categories in Ukraine
- Propose downmerging Category:Berezhany urban hromada to Category:Berezhany
- Propose downmerging Category:Ternopil urban hromada to Category:Ternopil
- Propose downmerging Category:Zbarazh urban hromada to Category:Zbarazh
- Propose downmerging Category:Zolotyi Potik settlement hromada to Category:Zolotyi Potik
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, we normally do not have a municipality category when there is already a town category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Cyber Ranges
- Propose renaming Category:Cyber Ranges to Category:Cyber ranges
- Nominator's rationale: Change to sentence case Sungodtemple (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)