Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CreativeName1 (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 24 February 2020 (→‎Categories by geography). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 21 February 23 >

February 22

Category:Nobel laureates in Economics

Nominator's rationale: After all, it is not an official Nobel prize (Official name: Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). We should keep it separate from Nobel prizes. Störm (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Necrothesp. The head article is at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, but its lead begins The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. The article is mistitled, but the category correctly follows the common name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars Force-sensitive characters

Nominator's rationale: These are three newly-created and completely in-universe categories that add no encyclopedic value. I believe one or more of these was created and deleted in the past, among other similar Star Wars character categories. — TAnthonyTalk 18:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by geography

Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Following the deletion of similarly-named categories created by Lmatt (talk · contribs) (whose work was considered disruptive and who was blocked as a result), see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Categories_by_parameter, this older one remains. "Geographical categorization" here means location, language or ethnicity/culture, i.e. various aspects of human geography. It may be that it is useful to gather these together, in which case choose option A, because we don't need both these layers, and the shorter name is clearer. Otherwise, choose option B.
It is interesting to note that several other-language Wikipedias have implemented a similar structure (intentionally, not copied just by bots).
Note: if Option A is chosen, the first category page should be moved over the target page, since it is older.
(added at 21:56) If Option B is chosen, the sub-cats should be dismantled by returning the contents to where they were before.
Disclosure: I have moved categories by continent/country/etc back into Category:Categories by location, where they were before Lmatt moved them. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I not like your suggestion of Category:Categories by geography? You are right that it is shorter but I disagree that it is clearer. Geography is a discipline and not a property of something. This is similar to another trend, where the word "geometry" is used when the structure of form of a body is meant. Geometry is the science of the planes and solid figures, so a subdiscipline of mathematics, not the property that a body has. Another commonly wrongly applied fashionably expression is the "architecture" of something, e.g. a molecule. Architecture is the art of construction, not a molecule property. CN1 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the previous discussion, linked above, you were the only person who found "Categories by [foo] categorisation" clear. Perhaps "Categories by geographical parameter" would be an improvement. However , you have not explained (i) why it is useful to have language and culture/ethnicity categorised with location, or (ii) how it is useful to distinguish "geographical location" from simply "location". – Fayenatic London 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Categories by geographical parameter" is acceptable. Alternative: "Categories by spatial parameter". to your (i) even if our world is globalized, language / culture / ethnicity still are ways of categorizing by space i.e. location. As to your (ii) the two terms you present are synonymous, which is exactly why I wrote that language / culture / nationality / ethniticy are »[geographical] location based classifications« = »location based classifications«. However I changed my vote to support your proposal B now. CN1 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of historical period drama films

Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with the name of parent Category:Historical films. The films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MapReader and Armbrust: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator I would have expected the proposal that starts the discussion to have been my own, not an amended one from another editor. Suggest yours as an alternative in discussion, by all means, but IMO the existence of historical documentary films renders yours flawed from the outset (unless you intended to propose a merge of a batch of categories, which is really a whole separate discussion). MapReader (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Object I am troubled by this proposal. There is a distinction to be drawn between historical fiction and dramatisations of history that are attempting to portray fact. However I do not have a solution to offer. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not all historical films are dramas. See Category:Historical comedy films and its subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original CFDS proposal You can have ‘historical drama’ and ‘period drama’, which mean pretty much the same thing (perhaps, ancient history and recent contemporary history films are less likely to be described as ‘period’ films, but that’s a nuance) but ‘historical period drama’ is a tautology. The pre-internet gold standard for encyclopaedias, Britannica, has ‘historical drama films’ as its subcategory, and its prevalence as usage overwhelmingly more common than ‘historical period drama’ can be checked quickly by Google - most hits for the latter derive from WP. Indeed within WP itself ‘historical drama film’ is already the most common usage within articles, with instances of the tautological phrase mostly contained to foreign language films, particularly Indian ones, for some reason (I have been editing these out, reflecting the change to the main article title, which has proved uncontroversial. This should have been a straightforward C2D and the only objection was on grounds of recency, not substance). So my proposal is simply to remove the redundant word ‘period’. MapReader (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. if other editors wish to discuss merging subcategories such as drama, comedy, documentary into one wider ‘historical films’ category, can we do so separately and later? Otherwise discussion of what was a straightforward C2D proposal is going to turn into a mess. Thank you! MapReader (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there would be no consensus about the current proposal then the CFDS proposal is a second best alternative, better than keeping as is. But again, the films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title or the title proposed at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some films might not be correctly categorised it not in itself an argument pertinent to the category titles. I still think you had a cheek overriding my proposal with your own, and would be grateful if we could establish first whether the CFDS proposal has any opposition. MapReader (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will most happily confirm that the CFDS proposal so far does not have any opposition compared to the current category name. However, there is no need to have two consecutive discussions about the same category, because it is the end result that counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with parent Category:Mass media by interest and grandparent Category:Mass media. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IUCN Category Ia

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. It is mentioned in the infobox of every article, but more specific information on when, why and how these protected areas got onto the IUCN list is consistently lacking. Besides on the IUCN website I cannot find a list of these nature reserves (but perhaps I am not searching well enough). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even well-developed articles such as Baker Island make no mention of this in the article text and all the articles I checked are in much better categories. If not deleted it should be renamed to something more meaningful and articles placed in it properly (by a category tag).DexDor (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Males

Nominator's rationale: rename, these appear to be topic categories, which we normally do not pluralize. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:: If these categories were deleted, then how would their subcategories be recategorized? Why should these categories be deleted? Jarble (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion would be that there isn't really a coherent topic here (i.e. it's not grouping articles about similar topics). The subcats I've looked at are in more suitable parent categories. DexDor (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed some redundant categorization. These cats now each have just 2 subcats. DexDor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biology of gender

Nominator's rationale: selectively merge to Category:Sex or possibly move somewhere else. The category contains a hodgepodge of articles that belong in Category:Sex, Category:Sexual orientation, Category:Transgender, Category:Intersex, Category:Males or Category:Females. Besides, "sex" is a biological concept anyway, so a category for "biology of gender" does not add anything to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capital T

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Downmerge the discography page to Category:Capital T songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discography page was re-created again with new sources and more information. I think the category can stay.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones

Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant to Category:iPhone Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awards of the Holy See

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think WP:SMALLCAT is not an argument in this case, since there are many articles, just that they are in a subcategory, so this is part of the tree. This is a valid and useful tree structure. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They are both knighthoods, so that chivalry is appropriate. I think Debresser has misunderstood the potential outcome, which will be that the article on each order goes into the target category and the membership content becomes a subcategory. That would be wholly appropriate. We are not talking about the subcategories, which should probably be retained, though WP:OC#AWARD discourages award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons aberrations

Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted, so the category has no real utility in organizing the articles. As with most of the articles in the category structure, the majority are merge/redirect/deletion targets, so the number will be cut drastically in the coming weeks as well. TTN (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons giants

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. This will only shrink from here. Upmerge to both categories. TTN (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forgotten Realms creatures

Nominator's rationale: This has no real organizational purpose because every article I've looked at is within the other categories in "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." I don't think the general reader needs to know the campaign settings in which the creatures are utilized. This is from when D&D had about five times the current number of existing articles. If there's an article I missed that's not already covered elsewhere, then it should be upmerged to "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." TTN (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia

Nominator's rationale: delete, this category concerns two municipalities, Daruvar with 11.000 people of which 20% Czech-speaking, and Koncanica with 2.000 people of which half Czech-speaking. Both municipalities are mentioned in the list article Minority languages of Croatia. The two other articles in the category are villages in the municipality of Daruvar. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of computing topical overviews

Merge Category:History of industry topical overviews‎ to Category:Industrial history
Merge Category:History of science topical overviews‎ to Category:History of science
Merge Category:History of technology topical overviews‎ to Category:History of technology
Merge Category:History of the arts topical overviews‎ to Category:Art history
Merge Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United Kingdom
Merge Category:History of the United States topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United States by topic
Merge Category:Maritime history topical overviews‎ to Category:Maritime history
Nominator's rationale: There is no clear distinction between an article that is an overview and one that is not - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_7#Category:History_of_Australia_topical_overviews. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the points made in the previous CFD (linked in the nom). DexDor (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The topical overviews have the merit of enabling a short list of head topic articles to be picked out from the mass of detail, some of which may need to be purged from the target categories into various of their subcategories. I have a problem with the scope of Art/arts, which is mixing graphic arts (e.g. painting) with performing arts (e.g. theatre, film, etc). Arguably a head category on the arts might include everything that is not a science, but that is not necessarily helpful, except as a very high level category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexual Minorities in Mahabharata

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Note that all four articles are already in Category:Characters in the Mahabharata. If the category is not going to be merged, it will at least need some kind of renaming, since we do not have any other Sexual Minorities categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I looked at all four articles and had difficulty working out what its basis is. I think it is that certain characters of the Mahabharata, where either of ambiguous or alternating gender. This is somewhat different from LGBT or Transgender. One of the persons is described as androgyne, which has some similarities to intersex or non-binary, but this is mythology and does not fit with real life categories. Perhaps Category:Androgynes in Mahabharata. I think we should allow an exception to the normal minimum of 5 articles in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please close per consensus above. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_22&oldid=942322260"