Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by عمرو بن كلثوم (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 21 April 2024 (→‎Category:American Jewish billionaires: +cat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 14
April 16 >

April 15

Category:Feminist historians

Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 11 April 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) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trademark attorneys

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to make the distinction for what kind of intellectual property law they practice? (With the exception for patent attorneys). Mason (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the articles say they are specializing in intellectual property, broadly. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Our sexual orientation categories covering same-sex attraction are fully diffused by gender (Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, and Category:Non-binary gay people). Getting rid of Category:Non-binary gay people would make it impossible for a nb person who does not identify as either a gay man or a lesbian be categorized as gay (in the broad, gender-neutral sense).--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Quentin State Prison inmates

Nominator's rationale: This is the naming convention for prison inmates. See Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, Category:Inmates of ADX Florence, Category:Inmates of Sing Sing, Category:Inmates of the Marshalsea, Category:Inmates of Sighet prison, Category:Inmates of Pitești prison, etc. The only time the convention is "Category:X inmates" is where X is a ghetto, e.g. Category:Łódź Ghetto inmates. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's rationale jengod (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 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) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Redundant: "Pourashava" means municipality in Bengali. Bolideleoi (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students of Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Small category, fails WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and "students" categories are used for people who are only notable as a student. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and marco. Mason (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON: Individual works by a person should not be included in an eponymous category but should instead be in a sub-category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. --woodensuperman 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, there can be another category naming that such as Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani and Category:Books by Hussain Ahmad Madani. Bengali editor (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference there is that Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani contains other articles which aren't books, thus warranting an WP:EPONCAT, this one doesn't. --woodensuperman 09:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://alhidaayah.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Transcript-IDTP-5.pdf

Category:American Jewish billionaires

Nominator's rationale: I haven't done much editing in categorization recently, so maybe the rules have changed, but this one sure reeks of a WP:OCEGRS problem to me. At the very least, there ought to be community consensus (rather than the actions of a single editor) that this intersection is sufficiently noteworthy and unbiased to merit inclusion; I do not believe it is, certainly not without context. Chubbles (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just created Category: American Italian billionaires, which somehow weirdly created another Category:Italian American billionaires category. One of them can be deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Latin writers

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yemeni scientists by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in Yemen

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of occupation and location of arrest. Mason (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we shouldn't have "arrested" categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marching

Nominator's rationale: Purge or reparent. Are pride parades part of military traditions? There's already Category:Military marching and Category:Military marches. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic rock musicians

Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aphex Twin songs

Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song". Popcornfud (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not. Mason (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.) Popcornfud (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin was created 15 January 2016‎; Category:Aphex Twin songs was created 21 October 2007‎, is therefore older, and therefore should be the merge target. This seems to be a comprehensive solution to all issues observed above. NLeeuw (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Mason (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people. NLeeuw (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely because [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
    • Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
    In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then my "surely" should be read as "certainly". Happy to improve my English vocabulary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome! NLeeuw (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ....and I forgot to tag Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin last week. Oops. If there are no further comments by next week, we should be all set for implementing NL's proposal. Apologies for the delay/third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries HouseBlaster. :) NLeeuw (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_15&oldid=1220097265"