Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 29 April 2024 (→‎Category:Redirects from translations: Closed as rename (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 20
April 22 >

April 21

Category:Combined authority mayoralties

Nominator's rationale: The Category:Combined authorities was renamed Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities, to reflect the renaming of the article page to Combined authorities and combined county authorities. This proposal seeks to mirror this in relation to CA and CCA mayoralties. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Remote viewing

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not deleted, it may be renamed to Category:Stargate Project, that is what the category and subcategory are primarily about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that is a small category with no hope of expansion (because it doesn't exist any more). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajputana Agency

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under Category:Princely states of Rajasthan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages with Linglist code

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a variation of WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the collaborative value of the entire Category:Wikipedians by sexuality/Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians tree, given WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by sexuality or gender identification, but I agree the "not-based" rationale doesn't apply and this is no different than its kindred so weak keep * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not necessarily be what users try communicating with their userbox. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of sexual orientation? --Trystan (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that the related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Wikipedians by sexuality closed as merge. Participants may also be interested in that discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If not deleted, I agree that "preference" should be changed to "orientation" for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to substitute "orientation" for "preference". This category does not relate to a binary or non-binary gender, but rather someone's sexual orientation. An editor may be confused about their sexual orientation and it is not for Wikipedia to decide their sexual orientation for them. The merge discussion cited above would also be of no purpose because the category really would be in relation to someone unable to make their mind up whether they are a certain sexual orientation or not. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muppet performers

Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
For reference, they also each play endless characters, so it's not really by performance.
I'd propose Category:Muppet Studios performers, Category:Sesame Workshop performers, and Category:Jim Henson Company performers. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering. Scanlan (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. E.g. Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). – Fayenatic London 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians of the Korean Empire

Nominator's rationale: Either (A) purge and rename to political office-holders, removing some e.g. Syngman Rhee who was born under the Empire but IIUC not a politician until it ended; or (B) rename to Category:Politicians from the Korean Empire, because where there is no demonym we usually use "Politicians from" rather than "of" (see various siblings in Category:Politicians by former country). – Fayenatic London 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". – Fayenatic London 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category. Mason (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Native American artists by gender

Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.) Katya (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then I modify to: Merge Category:Native American male artists to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it looks like there's been discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.) Katya (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crafts deities

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from translations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Redirects from alternative translations. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the rcat template - {{R from alternative translation}} - and the parent category - Category:Redirects from alternative names. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rātana politicians

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church. Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians). Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse 20th-century Latvian ceramists by region. There are only nine Latgalian ceramists in the entire tree. Mason (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rātanas

Nominator's rationale: This category is more about the Rātana faith overall than adherents to the faith. As such, it should be singular rather than plural. In any case, as a Māori word, the plural would simply be Rātana. Because of this, I was also tempted to add the category Category:New Zealand Rātanas for renaming to something like Category:New Zealand Rātana adherents, but given that all other religious adherents categories simply use an -s suffixed plural, I've left that as is. Grutness...wha? 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable intersection [5][6]--User:Namiba 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-Russian Traitors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates NPOV by calling people listed in category "traitors." Peter Hitchens was listed by category creator as a member but I reverted it as a BLP violation. Thebirdlover (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:WAMPAS Baby Stars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article about this category states this was a promotional campaign, not an award. As such, it seems non-defining. User:Namiba 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"(Artworks/Art) depicting (subject)"

Paintings
More nominations, including for sculptures, prints, drawings, art in general, and stamps
Sculptures
Prints
Drawings
Art
Stamps
Nominator's rationale: Categories for artworks by subject currently use a mixture of the style "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] of [a subject]" and "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] depicting [a subject]", and the style with "of" is the predominant one. Looking at categories for paintings and sculptures, which comprise the bulk of these, there are currently 187 instances of "Paintings of [a subject]" to the 84 of "Paintings depicting...", and 425 of "Sculptures of [a subject]" to the 14 of "Sculptures depicting...". For some other types of artwork we use the style with "of" almost exclusively: "Portraits of...", "Statues of..." and "Murals of...". The word "depicting" is an unfortunate choice for three-dimensional works because the etymology refers to the act of painting.

In the case of Category:Art depicting people and its subcategories which begin "Art depicting...", the categories using "depicting" are inconsistent with most of their sibling categories, which instead use "...in art". Similarly, the subcategories of Category:Topical postage stamps which use the word "depicting" are inconsistent with the majority, which use "...on stamps". Ham II (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft oppose This is an interesting question. I think some might think of "of" as meaning "by", but we've got the Category:Works by artist tree for that, so I suppose that is not a big problem. "depicting" is less ambiguous in my view, but for consistency's sake, I'm willing to go with the majority formula if there are no other considerations. The only strong objection I really have is that the vast majority of the nominees are about mythological, legendary or religious figures whose existence has not been proven (and often cannot be proven), and/or about whose identities considerable controversies have arisen. "Painting of Foo" suggests more directly that Foo was posing while the painter was painting their portrait (like "Photographs of Foo"; if you were there while Foo was there, you could have captured a similar image yourself), while "depicting" suggests more distance, more creative imagination about what Foo might (have) look(ed) like, while nobody alive in the artist's time has ever observed Foo. Obviously this doesn't apply to Queen Victoria or Elizabeth II, but because stamps often depict mythological or legendary figures as well, I understand that the category tree has been kept consistent with "depicting". I also understand the etymological argument that depicting comes from pingere "to paint", which wouldn't fit other types of art like sculpture, but the meaning of words can change. "picture" is nowadays usually synonymous with "photograph", which has nothing to do with painting either. So I understand the nom, but I can't fully support it for these considerations. NLeeuw (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Paintings of Foo" doesn't imply that they were done from life; that's only true of "Photographs of Foo", and you've drawn too close an analogy because of the linguistic similarity. It wouldn't be more accurate to call Leonardo's Last Supper a "painting depicting the Last Supper" than a "painting of the Last Supper"; the meaning of both phrases is identical.
    "Of" instead of "depicting" would also be preferable in order to avoid unnecessary wordiness further down the category tree: "Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli" is less of a mouthful than "Category:Paintings depicting the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli". Ham II (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Additionally, although I know usage has gone beyond this, & it may no make much sense etymologically, part of me dislikes using "depict" when no paint is involved. Can we also change "themes" for the correct "subjects" in Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes to Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes & the New Testament one. In art, "death" and "love" are themes, the Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well). Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one format across the tree, either "of" or "depicting". I do not really have a preference between them so I am happy to go with the current "of" majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In other instances—film, for example, I might have opposed this, because films frequently depict persons or things other than their subjects. But in the case of paintings, it seems less likely that we'd need to distinguish between the subject of the painting and something depicted in it. A painting that shows Mars or Helen or the Trojan Horse or the Apostle Paul in the background would probably still be reasonably described as a painting of that person or thing, even though the main subject might be something else. "The Last Supper" is still a painting of each of the Apostles, simply because they appear in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the "depiction" language, though, and it makes sense to distinguish depictions from subjects in other media, so consistency is not a good argument, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possibly worth noting that when the distinction between depictions in films and subjects of films is made, the phrasing used is (e.g.) Category:Depictions of Julius Caesar on film (i.e., not "Films depicting Julius Caesar") and Category:Films about Julius Caesar, so this nom isn't proposing to get rid of the exact phrasing used there. Ham II (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western European culture

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Western European music and other precedents. The child categories are just duplicates of Category:Culture of Europe by country or Category:Culture of Europe by dependent territory, based on home-made WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT definitions of "Western, Northern, Southern, Central", and "Eastern Europe". The few articles in the categories are either also Culture of Fooland articles that have already been diffused (see Category:Southern European culture; these can be purged right away), or are so broadly European that they cannot be limited to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. Some examples:
Some examples of articles to be selectively upmerged
Etc.
There's enough room in Category:Culture of Europe for these articles that can hardly be limited by arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Apart from the subcategories the articles are quite a hodgepodge so plain deletion could also be a satisfactory outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I do think all the articles fit in Category:Culture of Europe. I just don't think we could limit them to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Letopis

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, selective duplicate of existing Category:Serbian chronicles and Category:Old East Slavic chronicles. Created last month by User:ArchVKL who has done only 2 edits ever. "Letopis" is just the transcription of the Russian word летопис which is commonly translated as "chronicle". Talk:Letopis (genre) was merged and redirected to Rus' chronicle last year. NLeeuw (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Indian independence activists from Pakistan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Pakistan did not exist yet when they were independence activists. Purge Mufti Mehmood who was not from Sindh. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean Sindh, with an h? Otherwise I agree. NLeeuw (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nigerian-American Art

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. If not merged, it should be renamed to Nigerian-American art Mason (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_21&oldid=1221300510"