Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 17

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.211.233.131 (talk) at 13:27, 22 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 16
March 18 >

March 17

Category:Paintings on gold backgrounds

Nominator's rationale: Is this really defining? Mason (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Put simply - yes it IS DEFINING. Whyever not? Strongly oppose the merge target too. Listifying would be better than a bad merge. These are NOT "gold objects", but made of wood, plaster etc with a tiny amount of gold leaf, though this has a dramatic effect on their appearance. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Category:Gold-ground paintings for consistency with our article Gold ground, and remove List of gold glass portraits from the category. Ham II (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd accept that, but I think the term Gold ground is not very familiar to the general reader, so would prefer it stays where it is. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As written it sounds more like a description of painting with a specific color background. Honestly, I probably woundn't have nominated it if it were called gold-ground, as that at least makes it a little clearer than this is an actual thing rather than a categorization by color. I think we could also move the category higher up to paintings by medium or something like that. Mason (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also say that Category:Gold objects already has 11 sub-cats, some very big, and 106 articles, so diffusion is very good. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod. Of course it is defining. Obvious what makes these works stand-out from other paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Gold-ground paintings per Ham II. I realize that the new title is not "very familiar to the general reader", but our titling WP:CRITERIA call for the title to be recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area, not someone on the street. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered CIA agents

Nominator's rationale: More accurate. Agents refers to someone recruited to spy, rather than an agent handler referred to as a case officer. This category includes agent handlers who were employees of CIA, rather than people the CIA recruited to spy on their behalf. Longhornsg (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personifications in mythology and religion‎

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, it happens so often that deities of these ancient and medieval mythologies are personifications of something that it does not differentiate them at all. Put it more precisely, it is not defining that they are the personification of something, it is only defining what they personify, and Category:Deities by association suffices for the latter purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if only because most if not all polytheistic deities are personifications of various concepts, and I agree that Category:Deities by association serves that purpose better. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these well-populated categories, per nom that "it happens so often that deities of these ancient and medieval mythologies are personifications of something" seems to be a fact and observation in favor of keeping the pages instead of a negative blow to their existence. Personifications are a "thing", not an abstract thought or whim. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: those categories are sufficiently and clearly defined within their contexts in mythology and folklore, since all of them were/are considered to be inseparable from the things they personify. Personifications have been a thing since a very long time, and are easily recognised and differentiated. Moreover, all those categories have enough pages that merging them would do the opposite of cleaning up. Deiadameian (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass media in Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Everything is already in some other subcat of all relevant parents. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libraries in Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Useless category layer. Move Category:Boston Public Library down to Category:Libraries in Boston (the main article is already in that category), and then merge Category:Libraries in Boston up to Category:Libraries in Greater Boston * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tunnels in Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Useless category layer. The one entry is already in Category:Tunnels in Boston. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighthouses in Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Useless category layer. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Caledonian tennis players

Nominator's rationale: Not sure about this category but, regardless, these players play for France. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all these non-mainland former territories/colonies of France now part of France itself? If so, then New Caledonia sportspeople are all of French nationality. In which case, shouldn't Category:New Caledonian sportspeople not be named Category:Sportspeople from New Caledonia or something similar? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This name change would apply to all categories in Category:Sportspeople from Overseas France if that were the case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bus stations in Suffolk County, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. This could technically be populated further by adding Wonderland station, but even after doing so there still really isn't enough content to keep. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bus rapid transit in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Only contains Silver Line (MBTA) and Urban Ring Project. Whether the former actually counts as "bus rapid transit" is disputed so it shouldn't be categorized as such in the spirit of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. That leaves only one entry which isn't enough to warrant a category. Move Urban Ring Project to Category:Proposed bus rapid transit in the United States * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't necessarily object to deletion, but there needs to be a broader CfD across these state-level categories. Currently, 15 of the 27 state categories have 3 or less items in them, so it wouldn't make sense to delete just this one. Regarding the Silver Line, you are correct that there is dispute whether it meets certain technical criteria of BRT, but it was intended as BRT and always discussed in that context, so it should be categorized as such. It's a very different case than the inherently subjective criteria discussed at SUBJECTIVECAT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet that means 23 states don't have a category (soon to be 24 because I am going to speedy merge one as containing only the eponymous article). So it's not like deleting this would break some ironclad convention.
    I think I would see your point about categorizing the silver line if there were enough other things to categorize it with, but there aren't really, so it's a functionally isolated, vague, small category. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Urban Ring Project is still kept in Category:MBTA bus so it does not entirely fall off the radar. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Combined authorities

Nominator's rationale: The article Combined authorities and combined county authorities has been amended to include combined county authorities as they are similar to combined authorities. Other articles have been amended to reflect this change. The category should reflect this in the same manner, as it currently includes pages linked to it which are CCAs but appear in this category as CAs. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but add "in England" (or is it UK?) for clarity. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article does not include "in England". The template Template:Combined authorities and combined county authorities does not either. I would therefore propose to leave out "in England" so that it matches with the template, the article and the other text on the category page. 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories often need clearer names than articles, as here. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better the other way round as the article is confusing attempting to cover 2 separate things, the article needs splitting not the categories merging. Keith D (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't think he'd last. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A concrete, updated proposal would be very much appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century in Tegucigalpa

Nominator's rationale: merge, with only three articles we do not need three category layers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture by city in China

Nominator's rationale: This category excludes all cities in Taiwan, which has a separate category: Category:Culture by city in Taiwan. Therefore, it's not all of 'China', but the PRC specifically. It should therefore also be re-parented from Category:Chinese culture to Category:People's Republic of China culture (now nommed for speedy renaming to Category:Culture of the People's Republic of China per C2D main article Culture of the People's Republic of China). Compare how the parent of Category:Culture by city in Taiwan is Category:Culture of Taiwan, not Category:Chinese culture. NLeeuw (talk) 09:41, 9 March 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) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those who voted for the China–PRC merger never bothered to figure out what to do with topics as such. Topics associated with culture of the PRC, e.g., should certainly be fed to a category similarly named but such scenarios have simply been ignored. 188.211.233.131 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are topical subcategories for the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Montenegro, the United Provinces of the Netherlands (the Dutch Republic), the Orange Free State, the Transvaal Republic, the United Province of Canada, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Confederate State of America, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, and so on and so forth. Why can't there be subcategories for the PRC? 188.211.233.131 (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From when on would it be right to equate the Soviet Union with Russia, or Malaya with Malaysia, or England or Great Britain with the United Kingdom, for the purpose of categorisation on Wikipedia? 188.211.233.131 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local Beauty pageants

Nominator's rationale: per Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Local Beauty pageants Estopedist1 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not yet clear what the rationale of the nomination is. Besides, this is largely a container category so if there is objection to categorizing local beauty pageants the subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 9 March 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) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman villas in Germany

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one villa in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems useful in connection with Category:Roman villas by country.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a wider scheme Category:Roman villas by country. Plus others may well be added over time. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category can be recreated when there are more pages to add. I really tried to find anything that could be added, and turned up nothing. Mason (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that WP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Indian medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass Mason (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians convicted of war crimes

Propose merging both Category:Heads of government convicted of war crimes and Category:Heads of state convicted of war crimes into Category:Politicians convicted of war crimes
Nominators' rationale: These two subcategories may have a bit too much overlap in scope anyways, especially in some countries where the national leader is technically both the head of government and head of state simultaneously. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename (or something else entirely)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 14:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kara no Kyōkai

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." Kara no Kyōkai was moved to The Garden of Sinners years ago, so the category should be also moved. Mika1h (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping centres in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Subcategorising along the four statutorily-defined areas of the country just as some other similar category trees for this country, e.g., roads. 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winsunited Cup

Nominator's rationale: Considering that the Winsunited Cup has somehow been merged as part of the FIFA Series, then I would have suggested that this category be renamed as Category:FIFA Series. ManiacOfSport (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tea critics

Alternative A: rename, these aren't critics, they are just against drinking tea.
Alternative B: delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature gods in Hinduism

Nominator's rationale: This category was created with main article as Prajaptis. Category:Prajapatis already exits. Prajapatis are not nature gods per se. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Nominator's rationale: Objectivism was moved from Objectivism (Ayn Rand) back in 2020, but the category has remained as it was before then. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian war crimes in Estonia

Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are about acts by either the RSFSR or the USSR. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT people by identity

Nominator's rationale: As concerned here and here, the term identity is sketchy since sexual orientation isn't necessarily a sexual identity (and some argue identity is a choice compared to the term orientation). The original category uses "by variation". Not sure if it's the best. We can reparent these categories anyways.
Also, separating transgender from marginalized sexual orientations is exclusionary, as concerned here
--MikutoH talk! 02:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Variation is not a term I’ve ever heard use by anyone referring to their orientation or identity. It sounds very inhumane and may actually be considered a form of othering - so I do not think that that could be used to refer to people - especially since all of these categories require positive self identification of the people tagged with these categories.
The worldwide WP:COMMONNAME use of the terms are “sexual orientation”, "romantic orientation" and “gender identity” - that is what the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the scientific community use. Anything else would be strange and artificial - Wikipedia follows, not leads in definitions.
Many people have multiple gender identities and sexual and romantic orientations. All of these are part of their overall Identity as an individual, hence "identity" is the overall root. Raladic (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this been notified to the LGBT project? It really needs to be. Sympathetic to some simplfication, but I'd like to hear from those more involved, who I'm sure will have views. I'm pretty sure "variation" won't fly. I notice all our Category:Queer people seem to be female (or... not gay men anyway) which I don't think is how the term is generally used. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_17&oldid=1214990384"