Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 171: Line 171:
*** But Category:Forts in Sint Maarten isn't!? [[Special:Contributions/46.229.243.187|46.229.243.187]] ([[User talk:46.229.243.187|talk]]) 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*** But Category:Forts in Sint Maarten isn't!? [[Special:Contributions/46.229.243.187|46.229.243.187]] ([[User talk:46.229.243.187|talk]]) 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
**** Apparently not. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
**** Apparently not. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
***** Will it be? [[Special:Contributions/46.229.243.187|46.229.243.187]] ([[User talk:46.229.243.187|talk]]) 16:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Merge/rename''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Merge/rename''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 07:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 07:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:13, 5 April 2024

< April 1
April 3 >

April 2

Category:People executed by Sweden by guillotine

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. I would say "for now", but I wouldn't expect this cat to have potential for growth. Then again, WP:CRYSTAL... NLeeuw (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia

Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia has only one page on it. What's the point in keeping it around? TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The category was not tagged; I will do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:01, 2 April 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]
  • Merge per nom. It also escapes me why there are gendered categories for translators. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support in principle. But also merge to Writers from Quebec‎. The gender intersection is because one of the parents is writers.Mason (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, that does not require every subcategory to be split by gender too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 26 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]
We don't need a subcategory just for Quebec if no other Canadian province has one. That's not a "one province gets special treatment because hey why not" scenario, it's an "either all 13 provinces and territories get subcategories across the board or none do, with no middle ground" scenario. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 2 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) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Sultan of Two Lands and the Khan of Two Seas

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:SMALLCAT and rather pointless. This is one of several subsidiary titles of the Ottoman Sultans, and not a distinguishing feature as such. We don't even have an article on this specific title, unlike e.g. analogues such as King of the Four Corners which are notable precisely because they were reused by successive polities and their rulers. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic and overlaps with Ottoman sultans. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Note: Smallcat has been deprecated and is no longer applicable. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages used in Doordarshan

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars by language of study

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Redundant layer. Both other children are already in target. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As both other children are already in the target this is in fact just a deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as the category creator. I think my reasoning was that not all Basque language scholars were linguists, but I don't feel strongly about it. Mason (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Breakfast Club

Nominator's rationale: With only a song from the film as the only other article, I don't think this warrants a category. --woodensuperman 15:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grammarians of Arabic

Nominator's rationale: This is an opposed speedy renaming nomination:
Copy of speedy nom
  • Category:Grammarians of Arabic to Category:Linguists of Arabic – C2C: Siblings within Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian. NLeeuw (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Is the tharget the same as Category:Arabists? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. "Foo-ists" usually refers to scholars of both language and culture, whereas "linguists of Fooian" restrict themselves to, well, linguistics. It might be useful to draw a comparison with my own cultural milieu here. My native language is Dutch, my country of residence and nationality is the Netherlands. The study of both country and language is known as Category:Dutch studies (Neerlandistiek in Dutch), but you'll immediately notice that the contents of the category are very much focused on the country of the Netherlands and not so much on the Dutch language (also widely spoken and written in Belgium and Suriname, though these countries tend not to be of great interest, as the category seems to show). Similarly, in my experience, there is a lot of overlap between Arabists and scholars of Islam, as Arabic culture and Islamic religion are considered closely intertwined, even though linguistics are strictly speaking a separate discipline. But maybe it's better to move to full because there are lots of nuances to be made here. NLeeuw (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I've just found Category:Philologists of Arabic and now I'm confused as to what the difference is between the three. Let's just move go full. NLeeuw (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 2#Category:Grammarians of Persian.
I thought grammarians and linguists were synonyms, and this cat should be renamed in accordance with its siblings in Category:Linguists by language of study. But I'm not so sure anymore after some colleagues pointed out that previous CfDs resulted in Keeping grammarians of ancient languages, and that grammarians are just one type of linguists, just like philologists, lexicographers, and in this case Arabists. So, maybe renaming isn't a good idea, but instead we should make Category:Linguists of Arabic a parent of Category:Grammarians of Arabic, Category:Philologists of Arabic, Category:Arabists, and perhaps other members of subdisciplines of Arabic linguistics? NLeeuw (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic london, and Marcocapelle: from closely related discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 It is not yet clear if there are enough linguists here who are not grammarians. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, seems like I'm gonna convince you after all. :) NLeeuw (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only 4 churches total in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Réunion, so diffusion by century isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about, say, Hawaii or Alaska? (Or Malta should integration be achieved back in the 1950s–60s?) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or Kaliningrad post-1945? 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that it may be grouped under an African parent category when there are also such by continent parents. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you create it then of course it is a good merge target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category and put it under both the French and the African hierarchy. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an IP user you can vote as many times as you want but don't expect it to be taken seriously by the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on the final merge target, specifically on whether these churches belong in the "France" category, would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:53, 2 April 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic State – Khorasan Province activities

Nominator's rationale: Redundant and WP:OVERLAPCAT, I suspect nearly all activities would fit into Category:ISIS (K) terrorist incidents. Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that some of the categories have only been tagged for a few days, relisting to give some more time for input. If there is no further participation, we should be all set to implement the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, the category creator made more! Delete/merge all. Mason (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smasongarrison: which ones? Feel free to add them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry, I was reacting to the fact that you had found more categories by the creator. There aren't new ones beyond this list. Mason (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forts in the Caribbean

Nominator's rationale: Only a few islands have fortifications other than forts, so using "forts" will be more useful, enabling categorisation directly within Forts by country. Some unnecessary layers can be merged, and some names need correcting/disambiguating. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment

Nominator's rationale: purge biographies, as members of Hamas, al-Qaeda etc the view of these people towards Israel is obvious and does not define these people individually. Add a header on the category page that the category is not meant for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems like a reasonable decision to me. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. thanks for the ping:) I really like the idea of adding the header on the category page. Soyembika (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Anti-Zionism, I don't think we really need this category. Otherwise, I still support purging if this category is kept. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support purging, but not merging. Mason (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to name these categories, but I think they needs more clear names. Mason (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims 1941-49

Nominator's rationale: Merge as arbcat. Why 1941 to 1949? This distinction seems arbitrary. (If not merged, it should be renamed to Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims in the 1940s) Mason (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decades are common practice when there are multiple sibling decade categories, but that is not going to happen in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm I wouldn't be sure about that, but now that I think about it, perhaps a subdivision by century is a viable alternative? NLeeuw (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: @MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.--Aciram (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @Aciram@Marcocapelle@Nederlandse Leeuw Mason (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grammarians of Persian

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Same scope. All grammarians are linguists and vice versa. NLeeuw (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_2&oldid=1217400322"