Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 142: Line 142:
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 07:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 07:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
*'''Option B''' — we should name categories what people call themselves. Besides, "Islamic" is concerning Islam. while a "Muslim" is an adherent of Islam. So Option A is technically incorrect.<br />[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] ([[User talk:William Allen Simpson|talk]]) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' — we should name categories what people call themselves. Besides, "Islamic" is concerning Islam. while a "Muslim" is an adherent of Islam. So Option A is technically incorrect.<br />[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] ([[User talk:William Allen Simpson|talk]]) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Neither options are valid IMO. Option A will not work because all Muslim theologians are Islamic scholars, but not all Islamic scholars are theologians. Theology is a subfield of traditional Islamic studies (known as [[Aqidah]]) and it makes sense to group scholars whose focus is on theology (writing on matters on the nature of god and belief) and separate them from other Muslim scholars specializing in other fields such as the worldly Islamic criminal law. For option B, the word "''Ulama''" these days largely refers to religious office-holders (e.g. in religious courts or government ones) or at the very least involved in some ruler's court in some way, either assisting or advising them. Thus, it has political connotations...almost like they're a separate class of their own. In fact, the Ulama are a dominant power in Saudi Arabia's politics. I'd ping [[WP:ISLAM]] about the discussion to bring in editors more familiar with the Islamic context. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


==== Ice hockey players by city ====
==== Ice hockey players by city ====

Revision as of 22:51, 9 January 2023

< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

Category:Yahoo! Games

Nominator's rationale: Only category is main article Yahoo! Games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars of Sunni Islam

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground

Nominator's rationale: very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEF (along with Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located underground: while stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such... their defining characteristic is that they are SkyTrain stations, not whether they're underground or above-ground ones Joeyconnick (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that defining characteristic is already fulfilled via the use of the "Canada Line stations", "Expo Line (SkyTrain) stations" and "Millenium Line stations", which in turn links to that category. Wikipedia categories aren't meant to be defining by namespace, at least not primarily. The thought was to connect them to the category tree "Underground rapid transit stations located underground/above ground in Canada" which then connects to the global dito Assimo23 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... the "Underground rapid transit stations located underground/above ground in Canada"? That seems contradictory.
Again, the majority of sources (which are mainly local news outlets) that discuss SkyTrain stations do not consistently comment on the underground/above-ground nature of these stations... which clearly means the two categories do not capture defining characteristics. Then there's cases like Waterfront, which has both a above-ground sections and an underground one (or Commercial–Broadway)... honestly I'm sure it would be described differently by different people/sources. So not only is a binary underground/above-ground designation not useful or a key feature, sometimes it's impossible to unambiguously determine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_underground_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_underground
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_above_ground_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_above_ground
Look, you're not arguing against my proposition, there's around 45 underground rapid transit systems in the world that apparently like the idea on Wikipedia, if you have something against the Vancouver system being part of those then feel free to argue that. I was not considering anything else other than to add this system to the overall category tree. It looks like what you're really contemplating is whether it should be classified as an underground rapid transit system or just a rapid transit system in general, in which case those categories wouldn't belong here. But it is already listed in the "underground rapid transit systems in Canada" category so .. Assimo23 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You created categories which ought not to exist because they are non-defining (and were they to exist, they would in some cases be impossible to accurately assign). The fact that there apparently are crazy, self-contradictory categories like "Underground stations that are above ground" is immaterial.
Oh... I see... YOU created at least one of these insanities: Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground in Canada. And you just created it. Like January 2, 2023, i.e. yesterday. And the other 4 you list above are also your (misguided) creations, albeit from as "far back" as September last year.
Yeah, there are ALL sorts of problems here that extend WAY beyond this particular CFD. But to return to the original point about the two particular categories above: WP:CATDEF. They're not defining categories, ergo they should be deleted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Category:Underground rapid transit systems in Canada is not a category. I believe you mean Category:Underground rapid transit in Canada. And Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) being in that category has no relevance to whether:
should exist. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a subway system, stations are frequently mentioned as being either underground or above ground, in the news (for example about new stations, they are always mentioned whether they're underground or sub-surface in the news). How would that not be a notable trait about a subway station?
As for the category's name, I also find it insane to have Wikipedia category trees called "rapid transit" vs "underground rapid transit" because there is no way to definitively put a line between what constitutes one or the other, however, I did not come up with that idea, nor did I come up with the idea to start classifying only one of them as underground vs above ground, that was also initiated by New York City subway. Calling it "subway stations located above ground" maybe would be preferable but that would break the namespace logic of the entire class tree. Assimo23 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would perhaps be ideal to actually take a look at the category thoroughly before coming to conclusions prematurely .. Assimo23 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've all learned that mass nominations do not work well. The offenders can populate them much faster than we can discuss them. Focused discussion is better.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These two categories have been emptied by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if that was non-kosher. I haven't done much CfD stuff. My thinking was, along the lines of BRD, that the onus would be on the editor making the new category additions to justify their proposed additional categories once their application had been questioned. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — as an exemplar. This should be the first of a wave of such deletions. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion. Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground is a misnomer. If above ground, then not underground. Apparently, some languages call all rapid transit systems an "underground", a poor mistranslation of "subway".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers

Nominator's rationale: rename per article WorldCat. This was opposed at speedy, I am not sure if it was necessary to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • @HandsomeFella and Pppery: pinging contibutors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the oppose is very bizarre. Oculi (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opposes below are more convincing. Oculi (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Articles with X identifiers" categories are named after the parameter {{authority control}} accepts, not the corresponding article.

{{authority control|WorldCat=lccn-n78-95332}} -> does not work, whereas {{authority control|WORLDCATID=lccn-n78-95332}} ->

does * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Template talk:Authority control. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These categories are deliberately named after the name/symbolic abbreviation of the corresponding identifier or, where this is not possible because of name conflicts, after the name of the associated template parameter. They are not necessarily named after possibly existing articles about these identifiers or their parent organizations.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then why not rename that parameter? It can be done by adding an alias parameter until all instances are changed from WORLDCATID to WorldCat. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some good reason why this is technically difficult/impossible, then add an explanation to the documentation of this and another similar templates to forestall future CFDs. jnestorius(talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are moving away from using named parameters on this template anyway. In the future it will just use WorldCat Identities ID (superseded) (P7859) from Wikidata so this is less of an issue. By the way, I notice that even this property has the repeated/redundant use of "Identities" and "ID"! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if the size of the category is a factor here in this discussion but this change would affect 773,292 different articles if it is approved. Just don't want to bot to overheat and burn out or spend days (or weeks?) doing a category rename unless it would have a tangible benefit. That's all to say that changing this category name is not a trvial matter so I'd make sure that a majority of editors think this would be an improvement and a positive change and that this isn't just a preference for one name over another. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz this is populated by a Lua module, a form of super template, so it won't initially need a bot at all. Changing the template will change the category as the cache is purged by the wiki engine.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition

Nominator's rationale: There is a significant overlap between these two categories. There is also no parent or similar categorization scheme I can see ("by medical conditions" and "by medical specialty"). While one could quibble that for some organizations one name is slightly more accurate, bottom line is that those two categories are about the same concept. An alternative to merger to one of the existing names would be to merge and then rename the target to Category:Medical and health organizations by subject per parent category (Category:Organizations by subject). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly merge, the two categories have a clearly overlapping scope. I do not have a strong opinion on which name the merged category should adopt. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that there is definite overlap, but I worry that this proposed merge would displace all the disability related organizations that focus on specific conditions. I prefer merging into the broader category name "by subject" as that wouldn't risk overemphasizing the medical side of disability organizations. Mason (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Medical and health organizations by subject as suggested.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modes of production

Nominator's rationale: Category conflates two distinct concepts: (1) Mode of production (a concept in Marxian economics), and (2) various operation modes for manufacturing processes. (Not sure of best names.) 73.223.72.200 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars of Islam

OPTION A
OPTION B
Current category tree
As the closer noted, the previous discussion became quite incomprehensible because so many categories exist with quite similar names. So let's start with summarizing the tree, only insofar relevant for this discussion:
Problems
Now here are the problems:
  • Problem 1a: both Category:Islamic scholars and Category:Muslim theologians have the same main article "Ulama", but one category is the parent of the other.
  • Problem 1b (very much related to the previous): the difference in actual content between the two categories is unclear. When comparing e.g. the biography articles in Category:Islamic scholars in the United Kingdom with the articles in Category:20th-century Muslim theologians there really is not an obvious difference in the type of scholarship.
  • Problem 2: none of the biography articles mentions "Ulama" as a defining characteristic, and in fact there is no single term that is used consistently. Some of the words and phrases used instead are: Islamic theologian, fellow in Islamic Studies, scholar of Islam, Islamic scholar, lecturer of Islamic law, Hanafi theologian, representative of a (theologian) school, jurist, Twelver Shia scholar, religious scholar.
  • Problem 3: the name of Category:Scholars of Islam on top, which includes non-Muslim scholars, and the name of Category:Islamic scholars two levels deeper are very similar.
Nominator's conclusion
Category:Islamic scholars and Category:Muslim theologians should be merged because of problem 1a and 1b. Then how to call the merged category? There are three options, Ulamas, Islamic scholars and Muslim theologians, but neither of the terms is used consistently so we need a more general descriptor (problem 2). However "Islamic scholars" does not seem a good choice as a general descriptor because it resembles "Scholars of Islam" too much (problem 3). So ultimately I have a weak preference of "Muslim theologians" as it sounds less specific than "Ulamas", but either of the two will do. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion
@AmirahBreen, Grutness, and Dimadick: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know enough about the subject to pick which would be best - although I would say that for the average reader "Ulamas" might not mean much, and it might be a bit too specific a term for those who do know the subject well. I'd weakly favour "Muslim...", but I'm willing to be swayed by others who know more. The only vague problem I see with it is "Muslim theologians" sounds like theologians who are muslims, rather than specifically theologians who study Islam. It is quite possible that there are theologians who are muslim who study christianity or some other religion, and there are definitely christians who study Islam (e.g., Richard Francis Burton). Grutness...wha? 01:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect for the nomination, I incline towards "keep Islamic scholars, and reverse merge from Category:Muslim theologians". As a Christian, I am familiar with the idea of theologian and think it is widely understood, so would prefer "Muslim theologian" over "Ulamas". However, it is the term "Islamic scholar" that is predominantly used in Wikipedia articles and in other media. It is also used within Islamic sources, e.g. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quran,_Hadith_and_Scholars has "Islamic scholars" in the first line – and that wiki has no pages for Ulama or theologian.
Looking at some precedents: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_30#Ulama merged Category:Ulama to Muslim scholars of Islam. This ignored or overrode the intention stated at Category talk:Muslim scholars of Islam by Axiom292 (talk · contribs): "I am creating a new subcategory for ulama, because currently this category does not differentiate between religiously-trained ulama and academically-trained Muslim scholars of Islamic studies". Well, I suggest now that "Islamic scholars" be used for the former and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam for the latter.
On the other hand, that does not perfectly fit with Template:Category tree:Muslim scholars. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option B — we should name categories what people call themselves. Besides, "Islamic" is concerning Islam. while a "Muslim" is an adherent of Islam. So Option A is technically incorrect.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neither options are valid IMO. Option A will not work because all Muslim theologians are Islamic scholars, but not all Islamic scholars are theologians. Theology is a subfield of traditional Islamic studies (known as Aqidah) and it makes sense to group scholars whose focus is on theology (writing on matters on the nature of god and belief) and separate them from other Muslim scholars specializing in other fields such as the worldly Islamic criminal law. For option B, the word "Ulama" these days largely refers to religious office-holders (e.g. in religious courts or government ones) or at the very least involved in some ruler's court in some way, either assisting or advising them. Thus, it has political connotations...almost like they're a separate class of their own. In fact, the Ulama are a dominant power in Saudi Arabia's politics. I'd ping WP:ISLAM about the discussion to bring in editors more familiar with the Islamic context. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey players by city

Nominator's rationale: Players are only broken down by city in the United States, upmerge to missing parents category of people by city to align with the rest of cities across the world. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the tree of ice hockey players by state already exists. It is not appropriate to keep these categories but to remove players from specific cities as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is plausible to abandon the sportspeople by city and state scheme altogether, and just keep it to sportspeople by team, but that would require a huge nomination. Just deleting a few of these categories here will help very little. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every little bit helps. All of those I've checked were categorized sportspeople by team (with many teams), plus a birthplace trivia without references. Hopefully, we've learned our lessons about huge nominations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Haslet, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Small town (~1,500 residents) containing only one article User:Namiba 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_2&oldid=1132655989"