Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mercy11 (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 21 January 2024 (cmts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 19
January 21 >

January 20

Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao

Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of just one article. Merge for now. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional parasites and parasitoids

Nominator's rationale: This category was being confused for being a species category rather than one about individual characters who are parasites. There could be a complementary Category:Fictional parasitic species and races category, but I'm not sure there are enough of them to justify it. Either way, the species should be purged and recategorized to Category:Fictional species and races. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate rename to Category:Fictional parasites. There's no reason why this should be restricted only to individual characters, especially because parasites/parasitoids are biological terms applied to various species of animals, creatures and organisms. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom I don't see any real distinction here. Parasitoids are parasites who eventually kill their host. Their strategy is different to other parasites, but they are still parasites. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impractical sorting algorithms

Nominator's rationale: Less subjective. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "impractical" is less subjective, as humor is typically very subjective.
I got the idea for the category, when I watched this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgxMtWMflU
The video uses the word "impractical" multiple times, and also in the description: "In this video, I explored the realm of impractical sorting algorithms. Say goodbye to the usual and practical methods..."
Though, if the community prefers renaming, I don't mind. Marjeta42 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportswriters

Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS. The first one is the only sportswriter category sorted by male. For the sport and country specific, these are the only ones like it (only chess in split by country, not the rest). The Gaelic games category has a commentator/broadcaster category already (Category:Gaelic games commentators) so the name is redundant. And for the last one: the golf category is large with a mix of writers and commentators that makes navigation hard. The combination is only done when there are not enough of either to warrant seperate categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
Mason (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, American male sportswriters are already in subcats of Category:American male writers which is why I didn't add that. Same is the case with Martial artists (I spent a lot of time in the American sportswriters category so I'm sure). Australian one I'm not about though so I will add the second one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I suspected you'd already checked :) Mason (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I think you agreed with the nomination as is, correct? Asking just to clarify our above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secularists

Nominator's rationale: merge the two trees, the difference between "secularists" and "critics of religions" is not clear enough to keep them as separate trees. Conceptually there is a difference, but when reading individual biographies it becomes very blurry. On the other hand, purge subcategories of politicians by political party, Category:Secular Jews and Category:Cultural Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays about religion and science

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Draft-stub

Nominator's rationale: This page appears to have been created in error, or as an experiment. I see no evidence of its creation being approved through the process described at WP:NEWSTUB. I may have missed a discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is in the nature of a draft that it is likely to be very unfinished, and there does not seem to be any good reason for having a template to label them as such. Also, as far as I am aware, all the existing information about stubs refers only to articles, and extending the concept to other namespaces requires more than just a single editor deciding to do so without consultation: a discussion to determine consensus would be more appropriate. JBW (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional counterterrorism organizations

Nominator's rationale: Only has two articles that aren't redirects, too small to be realistically needed as a subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all counterterrorism organizations are military (e.g., CTU is not). Apokrif (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the redirects would just be removed unless they became an article. These categories are not redirect dumping grounds for every little mention of a fictional organization somewhere. If not they can be diffused accordingly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if only because counter-terrorist organizations are not necessarily all military, some can be civilian law enforcement agencies instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional vampire types

Nominator's rationale: This is basically just a glorified DAB page in category form, and should probably be upmerged to this, and the relevant subcategories of Category:Vampires in popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge to Category:Fictional vampires instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bermudian civil engineers

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the scope as right now there isn't a main engineer category, and it will be some time before Bermuda can support diffusing engineers by specialization Mason (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesspeople in retailing by company

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpfulf for navigation Mason (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish taxi drivers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's less than 3 people in here Mason (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional alien hunters

Nominator's rationale: None of the characters in here would be typically defined as an "alien hunter" first and foremost. (i.e. Samus is simply a bounty hunter, for humans or aliens alike. Agent J and K are government agents). Nor is there an actual article on the topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's no reason to distinguish by type of monster hunted given the size of the category. If the population grows, then it can be recreated Mason (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those advocating deletion be amenable to merging to Category:Fictional monster hunters, as Marco suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a good science-fiction category, seems it would be of interest to anyone who actually clicks on it. I'll probably look at it and click on a few (thanks to the category's creator, whomever that may be will give them a 'thanks'-button click). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional zombie hunters

Nominator's rationale: The nature of this category is somewhat flummoxing, as I don't know if any of the characters here could be called "zombie hunters". Usually, zombies are hunting THEM and they're trying to do some unrelated task that might stop the zombies somehow. The idea that someone might be a "zombie hunter" is not backed up by sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's no reason to distinguish by type of monster hunted given the size of the category. If the population grows, then it can be recreated Mason (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall

Nominator's rationale: If the category is not going to be deleted, the naming should at least be standardized with everything else in Category:Metafiction. This is my best guess as to what the name should be, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is directly relevant to this current discussion, but apparently "Category:Metafictional characters" was deleted in the past. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename, "btfw" variations seems to be used way more commonly per news search results (up to ~39k results, around 31k on average, depending on the chosen term variation) then any variations on metafiction (~6 thousand) and even in those it rarely refers to the characters. Respublik (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of the United States

  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more practical categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. For each of these categories, there's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Please add more than one category when you make occupation categories for insular areas of the United States. I only think that we should have categories like this if there are more than two territories in them (aka 3 or more). Mason (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect.
Mercy11 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays about the military

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. I tried to find a few more, but I clearly am not looking in the right places. Mason (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centers for the study of antisemitism

Nominator's rationale: 1. WP:CONCISE. 2 WP:COMMONNAME: most of the articles in the category aren't "centers" 3. Match parent "Category:Political research institutes". Longhornsg (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade

Nominator's rationale: While the 1970s category is sufficiently populated, the 1960s and 1980s categories only have 1 article each. This category scheme is more useful at the Ireland as a whole level. The articles are already located elsewhere in the Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abkhaz people

Nominator's rationale: I do not see a reason to split this two categories. Yorkporter (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st century in Southeast Asia

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation (there isn't even a 3rd century BC in Asia category) Mason (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Chinese novelists

Nominator's rationale: Not enough novelists to support a nationality by century intersection Mason (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Times of Malta

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains the main page and a non-free image used on that page. Mason (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Purported ancient yoga texts

Nominator's rationale: subjective Mason (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this single page need a category by itself? Mason (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems like you don't understand the purpose of categories. They are there to help navigation. Are there other cases of Purported ancient yoga texts. Although it is not relevant to this argument, just like your example, there would not have been a category in 1776 for presidents of the united states. The first president wasn't elected until 1789. Mason (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singleton, Mark (February 10, 2010). Yoga Body: the origins of modern posture practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 8, 184–186. ISBN 978-0195395341.

Category:Plays about gambling

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. theres only on category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle At the time I was trying to expand subcats for Category:Musicals by topic category tree. Musicals are a specific type of play, and any musical sorted by topic is a sub-cat of a play by that same topic. It was essentially a necessity to maintain the category tree. I assumed that others would eventually get around to sorting plays into the topic cats. I generally edit in areas related to musical theatre and opera. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st-century economic history

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated subcategory, the next one is for the 6th century. No need to merge, the only article is already in Category:33 and Category:Economy of ancient Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors from London by locality

  • Propose merging
Actors by locality (for deletion merging)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION; see nomination for "Sportspeople by locality" for further rationale. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated target categories: I previous proposed deletion for the categories listed in the collapsed box. However, I have changed those to merge with their respective "Actors from *borough*" categories per discussion below. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, pinging so you're aware of the change; similar to how I did "Sportspeople" since that was the main concern. If needed, we can deal with "boroughs" categories later. But the first step should be to get rid of the locality tree, which is not very helpful, and simplify navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they acted in entirely different locations (though possibly still in London). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soft oppose on the basis of application of OCLOCATION whih makes it clear that people i.e individual articles should not be categorised by their place of birth if that is non-defining. Therefore, it should be assessed on a case by case basis: if someone is not considered to be eligible for the Male actors from Kensington category because that cannot be verified beyond a birthplace which doesn't appear to be relevant to their overall life, then they shouldn't have the People from Kensington or Male actors from London category either! So if someone wants to go through every biography for every walk of life, every time period and every location and make that judgement, fair enough. Alternatively, I have noted that other Wikis don't use a Person by Geography category sphere at all, maybe that should be considered if it is not being used correctly and so of no value? Aside from either of those extremes, we'll just have to accept that life ain't perfect and many, many bios have been categorised by birthplace so some places, even relatively small parts of cities like London, have extremely large 'From' lists and so subcategories have been created in good faith using the occupation. Deleting entire trees because the People From concept has perhaps been misapplied (and will continue to be forever, let's face it, editors of all backgrounds like to put a hometown on articles if there appears to be one, and it would be very difficult to adequately 'police' its use due to the volume) is missing the point IMO.
    It should also be noted that as things stand, Actresses from London has 1,484 articles and Male actors from London has 1,605, so little would be gained by simply bloating them out by 238 and 245 respectively. However, it is true that most of these locality categories are very small and in some cases clearly unfinished e.g only 1 member in Category:Actresses from Romford, but there are 8 females - none of whom appear to be self-declaring as non-binary! - in Category:Actors from Romford (there is no Male Actors subcat there). A Category:Actors from London by borough‎ set has been created which these could be moved (it isn't gender-defined, but the locality categories shouldn't have been anyway as it makes them far too narrow), it might be easier to sort semi-manually using HotCat as otherwise I think it would need to be a two-step process i.e moving Male actors from Chelsea, London / Actresses from Chelsea, London‎ into Actors from Chelsea, London‎, then into Actors from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but maybe it could just be done directly...? Crowsus (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crowsus, I would be in favor of keeping occupation boroughs for occupations that are quite big but having divisions by borough and occupation and THEN by neighborhoods/localities and occupation makes for a complicated tree. This whole tree (and that of sportspeople) is a good example of WP:OVERCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economics by year

Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with parent Category:Economic history and siblings Category:Economic history by century and decade. If this is approved, the subcategories can probably be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from London by locality

  • Propose merging:
Sportspeople by locality
Footballers by locality
Cricketers by locality
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION. The "Sportspeople from London" categories covered by the city; these have recently been divided further by borough and then by neighborhoods within the borough and THEN by sports. Makes navigation quite confusing and complicated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated target categories: I've changed target categories to their respective boroughs. There were a few for cricketers who didn't have borough targets so I suggest triple merge them to "Sportspeople from *borough*" and "Cricketers from Greater London" - @Marcocapelle, is this fine? Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they played sports in entirely different locations. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, the whole point of these is the parent categories such as People from Croydon and Footballers from Greater London would be far too large. There is nothing confusing at all about someone being categorised by the sport they play and the town they are from as long as the tree of each follows a logical path, which these do. Crowsus (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging user:Grutness, user:Jevansen, user:Suonii180 and user:Namiba who are among those have also invested a great deal of time and effort in these trees and would probably be interested in this bid to blanket undo them conceptually (doubtless the result of this would be used as a precedent for other locations). Perhaps they can make more convincing arguments for retaining than me. Crowsus (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lastly, theupmerge proposal is badly flawed as it should be that these nominated categories be upmerged first to the level above, e.g Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Kensington and Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Chelsea should all be upmerged to Sportspeople from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Cricketers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, you've guessed it, Footballers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Alternatively those Borough-level cats should also be nominated for upmerging, but that hasn't happened. Interesting to see what the reaction would be if this proposal was mirrored in equivalent American trees and so drew the attention of more editors in that part of the world: I see no reason why the London trees should go but the likes of Category:Sportspeople from Riverside County, California with its 3 location subcats and 5 sport subcats should stay (just to be clear, I have no problem with the American ones, they are valid and so are the English ones). Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and a couple have been missed (Rugby union players from Kingston upon Thames, Rugby union players from Bromley) and there's a few disambigs in the upmerge to list. PS to give just 1 example in 1 sport from over 30 boroughs, upmerging the footballers from the London Borough of Lambeth and its localities would add 191 articles to Footballers from Greater London. Let's say the average is 150, so in what way does bloating that category by 4,500 aid navigation for anyone? Crowsus (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, would you be in favor of changing the target categories to "Footballers by borough" (and so on) in order to avoid making Category:Footballers from Greater London (and so on) too big? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope/upmerge to sportspeople, cricketers, etc by London borough. Locality isn't very helpful, but borough is an established tree for biographies in general so it would make sense to have sportspeople similarly divided. London's boroughs are each as big as a medium-sized city anyway. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grutness, I would be fine with changing target categories to boroughs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early Germanic economy

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all three articles are about the Viking Age. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americas

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's nothing in each category but a north american and south american category. Is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Organizations based in the Americas by country Mason (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago

Nominator's rationale: Only a redirect in this category, upmerge for now Mason (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marriage in early Germanic culture

Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't need to be isolated from the larger category Mason (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children by culture

Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't really cover culture. It covers childhood in older societies Mason (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economies by culture

Nominator's rationale: Based on the content of the articles/categories. This isn't about culture, but are ancient countries Mason (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands to England

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the parent category, there's no Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands category, and there are only three folks in here. This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adolescence in the Americas

Nominator's rationale: Category is unhelpful for navigation. It only has north and south america in it Mason (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Scientific Revolution

Convert Category:People of the Scientific Revolution to article People of the Scientific Revolution
Nominator's rationale: Extremely subjective Mason (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Greek dramatists and playwrights

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category is unhelpful for navigation. It only isolates the FOOian-century categories. Mason (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FOO women executed for witchcraft

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as I'm not sure that we should be distinguishing at the intersection of gender, nationality and type of crime. This does not seem in the keeping of WP:EGRS. If kept, this category should be non-diffusing Mason (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator Neutral. My rationale for making the categories in the first place (as with all of the other "Foo women executed for witchcraft") is that European witch trials historically have had important gendered implications (see Witch trials in the early modern period & how it discusses gender), and that, from my perspective, the creation of a few new subcategories by gender could be helpful for readers. WP:EGRS/G does state that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In my opinion, these categories fall in line with EGRS/G due to the historical context of the early modern witch trials and are useful for navigation. However, if consensus emerges in favor of deletion, I'll adjust my understanding of the guideline.
Addendum: After thinking about it for a little bit, & re-reading the guidelines, I can certainly understand the nom's rationale. I think, personally, they are useful categories (with perhaps the exception of "Women executed in the SWT", I'm now not convinced that's really necessary), especially as subcategories of Cat:Foo executed women. However, I'm not very experienced in this area of categorization discourse; I'll defer to the regulars here, & I'm taking this as a learning experience regardless of outcome. Thanks for bearing with my EGRS newbie mistakes & late-night WP:BOLD editing sprees. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_20&oldid=1197699838"