Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.70.24.37 (talk) at 15:57, 11 September 2022 (→‎Category:Games with force feedback support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 9 September 11 >

September 10

Category:Towns 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
This does not affect the category being non-defining, though. See also WP:Defining. IceWelder [✉] 14:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete nondefining for all members (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be both non-defining and a BLP gossip-mongering nightmare. Spike 'em (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked some 15 articles at random and this was defining for none of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Funeral directors of Austria

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Fiction about astronomical locations

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Consequences of wars

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moorish people

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Municipality categories in Ukraine

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)[reply]

Category:Cyber Ranges

Nominator's rationale: Change to sentence case Sungodtemple (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_10&oldid=1109733191"