Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wahspsneh (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 17 February 2023 (→‎Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Category:Physician and comedian

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated traits. As always, the category system is not a tool for making lists of absolutely any intersection of traits that happens to describe two or more article topics -- just because some arbitrary number of people can be found who happen to have been both physicians and comedians (either at the same time or at different times in their lives) is not in and of itself a valid basis for a category. And even if there were a valid basis to keep this, it would still have to be renamed for accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions for categories (i.e. pluralized) anyway. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Nominator. This category is not Notable OrewaTel (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree with Nominator. Highly notable people are both, usually a doctor becoming a comedian. It is also an unusual, notable choice. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This information is most interesting. The best way to make it available to the reader will certainly be to write a list article of doctors who have been comedians, per the guideline on Categories. Place Clichy (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is an unusual combination, but trivial from an encyclopedic point of view. These people are notable as a physician, or as a comedian, or both, but not because of the combination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial category. Similar categories such as Polymaths were deleted repeatedly with a wide consensus: 2013 January 20, 2007 December 29. WP:SNOWBALL may apply. Place Clichy (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deborah Carlos-Valencia

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person without a sufficient volume of spinoff content to warrant an eponymous category. There are just two things here besides the eponym herself, which is nowhere near sufficient to justify an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator seems correct. I thought I was doing the right thing to create this to link the two organizations she founded, but reading the link in the nomination, I am inclined to agree with the nominator. CT55555(talk) 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FPJ's Ang Probinsyano cast

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT for the cast of a television series. As always, we do not categorize actors for individual acting roles they may have had, as this would result in extreme category bloat as we added a category for every television series, and a category for every film, that they were ever in. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Namesakes of San Francisco streets

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCTRIVIA. Having a street named after someone is "unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." User:Namiba 23:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is interesting but irrelevant for categorization. This is about whether people in the category are defined by having a street named after them and that is obviously not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as trivial. That's typically the kind of thing you would expect to find (if sourced) at the bottom of an article, in a section on homage received that may include the list of streets named after a person. In the other direction, a list of streets in San Francisco with links is also possible. Category? No. Place Clichy (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trade fairs in Gothenburg

Nominator's rationale: too granular. WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fairgrounds in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. In addition: unique category name in Baltoscandinavia countries categories. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auditoriums in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. In addition: unique category name in Baltoscandinavia countries categories Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Song recordings arranged by Paul Buckmaster

Nominator's rationale: Not a developed scheme. Categories for production of song recordings take it to the producer level only. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gary Clark Jr.

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content yet to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics by city in Latvia

Nominator's rationale: only major cities can have notable politics actions. Latvia is a small country and basically with only one major city: Riga. Category has no potential to grow. In addition: unique category in Baltoscandinavia countries categories Estopedist1 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residents of 10 Downing Street

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation by address. 10 Downing Street is perhaps the best known address in the UK but shared addresses are overcategorisation. Note also that this is technically the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the two posts have not always been held by the same person. In addition several post holders did not actually reside in Number 10 for various reasons, with some using existing London homes and others swapping with other ministers due to family requirements (e.g. Tony Blair resided at Number 11 which has a larger flat more suitable for a couple with several children). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too much overlap with the prime ministers category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was expecting a cat or two might have been added. It's particularly silly to add the whole of the topic category Category:Tony Blair (etc) as this adds all sorts of non-people to a people set category. Oculi (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It simply comprises a list of Prime Ministers. If it included all the spouses, offspring and pets, it might serve a purpose but then I'd say it would not be notable. OrewaTel (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The rational does not make sense at all. The category is following the List of residents of 10 Downing Street, not a list of prime ministers. Several of the residents were never Prime Ministers or Lords of the Treasury. The list includes residents from the 17th century, and several civil servants who were granted the residence. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let it be a list. That will certainly be better for user navigation, completeness of information and presentation of reliable sources, things that a category cannot guaranty. Place Clichy (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categorizing people by the various street addresses they lived at is not a good idea. Wait, it's a famous address? Well, that's just because it is famous for PMs who lived there, who should be categorized as PMs. Other residents should be mentioned in the list article, the accidently-acquired additional notoriety is certainly not defining. BTW I believe that most governmental buildings in the old capitals of Europe (and maybe elsewhere) were (with exceptions) not purpose-built and have a history prior to their present use. This prior history will be better presented at the article about the building. Place Clichy (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Fictional females and other Category:Fictional females by occupation categories. Although inconsistent with other women categories, in case of fictional characters "female" is more inclusive and preferred because not all fictional characters are human. There have been depictions of females from other species. --Wahspsneh (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference: Gender as an adjective.
Comment: If consensus is in favor of overhauling the entire gender categories into an agreed upon standard (fictional, real, or otherwise), then I recommend moderate split that into a separate proposal, given the scope of that exceeds this proposal. --Wahspsneh (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding nom's latter comment (just added), even in rare cases of fictional soldiers not being human, if there is a verifiable gender distinction then surely the characters are humanoid enough to refer to them as men and women. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All should be adults because the category is currently named "women". In fact this is an extra argument for keeping it to women, in order to prevent overcategorization of fictional girl soldiers who are just fine in Category:Fictional child soldiers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The proposed rename to "female soldiers and warriors" sounds grammatically better than "women soldiers and warriors". And as someone else stated, it would also be inclusive of non-adult characters.--AHI-3000 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose — move all the subcategories to "women". Since at least 2008, this has been affirmed repeatedly. Under Category:Gender, the pattern is fairly simple:
    1. Category:Female is only biology and sex.
    2. Category:Women are Category:People: by location, by occupation, and everything else.
    3. Category:Fictional characters are under Category:People.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Central Asia

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge the two subcategories, this is clearly a collection of history articles and the main article is Western China rather than Chinese Central Asia. Alternative: diffuse among Category:History of Xinjiang and siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose areas like Sichuan, which are part of Western China, are typically not counted as part of Central Asia, even in the most expansive definitions of the region. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the alternative is probably a better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: the category is not just about Xinjiang, but generally about Chinese-ruled parts of Central Asia, the extent of which varied over time during the last two millennia. Something like what the IP below suggests would be closer to it. Constantine ✍ 07:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Xinjiang, as a name and territory, is a relatively recent thing,, whereas the phenomenon of Chinese presence/rule in Central Asia is much older. I don't see what we gain by abolishing a category that is flexibly defined to cover this historic phenomenon, in order to conform to modern borders. Constantine ✍ 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Indubitably. Because we tend to categorize things by what we are familiar with, and prefer precise delineations. I remember a striking exhibition of the pitfalls of this sort of recentism in the Historiska museum in Stockholm: on one wall, stone age tools categorized by province by museum curators ca. 1900, and on the other, modern toilet brushes, also organized by province.
My point here is that this category is not about Xinjiang or any modern political entity specifically: it is about a historical phenomenon that has no clear boundary, but has been an evolving cultural and political process. It usefulness is precisely that, just like Category:Roman North Africa or Category:Spanish Africa. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ambiguous temporally temporary perspective.
  1. The template for the article is {{History of Xinjiang}}; that really seems a more appropriate category.
  2. Apparently, I've been too concise. We've been fighting these perspective issues for many years. Greek versus Macedonian, Ukrainian versus Russian Empire, et cetera ad infinitum.
  3. The chosen solution is anchor with current modern location names, then accurately document the history from all sides.
  4. A chinese perspective might very well view these as "western", but the peoples there at the time were Turks (or some variation), who themselves divided into eastern and western regions which don't correspond to this chinese-centric nomenclature.
  5. Better to use modern locations.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the history of Xinjiang is related to this category, it also has content beyond the limits of present-day Xinjiang or 19th- & 20th-century East Turkestan: Anyang funerary bed, Emperor Taizong's campaign against Xueyantuo, Jibin, Battle of Irtysh River etc. The right question is: what is really (or should be) the scope of this category? Imho, looking at content, it deals with Chinese involvement West of the limites of China proper, mostly in the Tang dynasty (7th-10th centuries). I agree that a purely geographic term is better than a present-day jurisdiction to describe a loosely-defined region whose limits, obviously, changed in time. I note that the East Turkestan article talks about several terms used in history, also mentioning Chinese Turkestan. Maybe Chinese Central Asia should redirect there. Regarding Tang-period history, I'm afraid that the Chinese-centric view is probably unavailable seen that historiography and sources on this period are, unsurprisingly, quasi-exclusively Chinese material. Place Clichy (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. All characters are already in more appropriate Star Wars character categories so no merge is needed. ★Trekker (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are categories for a multidude of SW tv series characters. Unfortunate that it creates more category bloat, but I can see its use. Kbdank71 03:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTHERSTUFF exists isn't relevant. This specific series has no notable original characters.★Trekker (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — created by a banned user.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landmarks in Sri Lanka by city

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 subcat "Buildings and structures by city", which are not all landmarks. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only contain subcats for hospitals. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not add anything, it just hampers navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health in Moscow

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only contain subcats for hospitals. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not add anything, it just hampers navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitals in Chernihiv

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small categories in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all as WP:SMALLCAT, each has only one article apart from one that also has a list and the last which has 1 sub-cat.– Fayenatic London 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modernist architecture in Lagos

Nominator's rationale: Merge as WP:SMALLCATs with only one or two pages. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gothic Architecture in Lagos

Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:SMALLCAT with only two pages. Broadening out to the national level would allow the Neo-Gothic National Christian Centre to be added. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: if not renamed to Nigeria, it should be renamed to lowercase "Gothic architecture in Lagos". – Fayenatic London 10:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. OrewaTel (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amateur theatre companies in Latvia

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. By the way, the parent category:Amateur theatre companies by country is poorly developed, and rarely amateur theatre companies meets Wikipedia notability criteria Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation schools in Estonia

Nominator's rationale: only one aviation school in Estonia. Category has no potential to grow Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling events in Japan in 2008

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. No need to merge as it is already in other appropriate categories. User:Namiba 05:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In addition there aren't any other of these year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OrewaTel (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abuja architecture

Nominator's rationale: Unclear definition, as there is no article describing Abuja architecture. User:Namiba 03:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino women's volleyball Outside Hitters

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intersection between Category:Outside hitters and Category:Filipino women's volleyball players Engr. Smitty Werben 01:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a very narrow intersection indeed. If kept, at least remove the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted good faiths revisions by author. Category has been emptied. WP:OVERCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. Also, a day or so ago, I deleted a category with a similar name that was misspelled and mistitled. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable OrewaTel (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_15&oldid=1139981922"