Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 25

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 61.244.93.97 (talk) at 09:10, 28 March 2024 (→Category:Alumni of Diocesan Girls' School). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 24
March 26 >

March 25

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename as nominated or take the alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the alternative per marco. Mason (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American theatre people by populated place

Nominator's rationale: I think that we should repurpose this category to contain all of the theater people form Cleveland rather than delete it. Mason (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dramatists and playwrights from Cleveland

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse American dramatists and playwrights by city. Notably this is the _only_ city category. Mason (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquitted evangelical leaders

Nominator's rationale: A trivial intersection. User:Namiba 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages used in recruitment of Central Armed Police Forces of India

Nominator's rationale: This is all kind of language trivia and this is content that is better covered in the relevant articles and in Category:Official languages of India. PepperBeast (talk) 19:27, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 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]
  • Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India. Mason (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil clans

Nominator's rationale: New category outside existing hierarchies, with only one member page. Category:Clans includes Gurjar clans, Rajput clans and Vellalar clans, but I believe those are the only other categories for "clans" within Category:Social groups of India. – Fayenatic London 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Funerals in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer now that all contents are in a "State funerals" subcat. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint Style Guide Rename

Nominator's rationale: According to the official style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged. DarthTanner421 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rob Gronkowski

Nominator's rationale: Contains only Super Bowl LIII and Super Bowl LV, insufficient content for WP:EPONCAT. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private space missions

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Space mission redirects to Spaceflight#Terminology. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators from Quebec

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCLOCATION, not meeting either of the two criteria on which that would be allowed. The parent categories are not otherwise subdivided by province of origin at all, and are not large enough to need diffusion on size grounds, so this isn't part of any comprehensive scheme -- but being from Quebec does not define a translator differently than being from anywhere else in Canada does, so Quebec doesn't need special treatment here that other provinces aren't also getting. (And no, it doesn't map neatly to whether the person is an English-to-French translator or a French-to-English translator, either -- Quebec anglophones and ROC francophones both still exist, so a person from anywhere in Canada can equally do either thing.) So this is a scheme that would really only be necessary if it were possible to all-ten-provinces-and-three-territories it right across the board, and is not a thing Quebec needs in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all wedded to the necessity of subdividing translators by gender — most countries don't have that at all (India has one for women, but not for men, and even for women it's the only other country I know of that has one), and even the Canadian ones featured here were newly created by the same editor who created these Quebec subcategories on the same day just under a month ago, so there's absolutely a valid argument to be made that the gendered categories aren't necessary either. But that would be a fundamentally different argument than the one against these Quebec subcategories, so it wouldn't have made sense at all to bundle them directly into this discussion. They can certainly be nominated for a separate discussion if you feel strongly about it, but I didn't nominate them here simply because the question of whether gendered categories are necessary or not is a completely separate issue from whether Quebec categories are necessary or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of Diocesan Girls' School

Nominator's rationale: Typo. Diocesan Girls' School is a girls' school and the word "alumnae" should be used instead. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't use the female version for alumni for categories. Mason (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Remarks: This isn't probably the case of DGS, but there are women's education institutions which are having or had at some point male students, or vice versa, e.g. YWGS, SSGC, or SJA, especially when there were matriculation classes for the A-levels (SJA went on to become coeducational). 61.244.93.97 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Mason's argument before. It would be useful for the progress of the discussion if someone would provide examples of other girls' schools. I do not have an opinion myself, except let's just follow convention. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 26 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]
  • I came here from WP:LGBT/Alerts, but a notice on the talk page might get more attention.--Trystan (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support alternative merge. I do like the alternative merge and grouping with sort keys. Strong Oppose to rename. "Variation"? I really really do not like the term variation, and would definitely be bothered if someone referred to my sexual orientation or gender identity as variation. (I know that this is anecdotal, and just one queer person, but that's my immediate reaction to the term). Mason (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Lists of LGBT people#LGBT people by demographic uses "by demographic" instead of identity. Would this suit better? --MikutoH talk! 23:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this some more time post the notification of WP:LGBT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MikutoH: "demographic" is, like "variation", also a word that is almost never used in common language in this particular context. Why would you want to keep this category layer in the first place? Isn't it much more natural to find lesbian, transgender etc. people directly under LGBT? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the concern with demographic. Demographic is typicalyl used to describe a variety of groupings. If I were to see the term by demographic in the title of a wiki category, I'd assume it was looking at the intersections of nationality, race, and other broad classes of groupings. It would never occur to be that it would contain non-intersections, like Lesbian, Gay, Queer, Trans, etc. Mason (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: The only reason presented here to merge all container layers to the general category is making them all visible at it. Because merging both subcategories into "by identity" would solve the problem regarding them being separated. I'm not the only one supporting keeping it, it seems that Raladic supports status quo, and you also supported both choices suggested by Trystan, one of them supports keeping "by identity" cat and merging its subcategories.
    Why am I bringing "by variation" and "by demographic" here? Because then we can move the category in simplewiki (it hasn't RfD) and change the list section title. --MikutoH talk! 23:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as constituted, but not fundamentally against other alternatives. "Variation" is absolutely not the right word for what this entails, so that's a non-starter — but just upmerging them to the parent would be fine. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian comedians by city

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There's only one city in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_25&oldid=1215978343"