Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 173: Line 173:
::Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that {{tq|almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s ''survive'' for us to know about}}, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that {{tq|it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s}}. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories ([[Chuanqi (short story)|Chuanqi]]) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that {{tq|almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s ''survive'' for us to know about}}, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that {{tq|it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s}}. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories ([[Chuanqi (short story)|Chuanqi]]) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that ''one'' thing exists to file in it, and would require at least ''five'' things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that ''one'' thing exists to file in it, and would require at least ''five'' things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::::First, I'd like to point out you did not address any of my questions. I will take this to mean that you are dropping the arguments you made above and instead offering new arguments.
::::Second, I would like to point out that the very first item in the "Do's" of [[WP:CATDD]] is to {{tq|Use the most specific categories possible.}}, as per [[WP:CATSPECIFIC]].
::::{{quote|The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories.}}
::::The assumption here is that this category is inherently bound to only contain one entry. there is nothing about the category label—short stories in a specific year—that entails this. It just happens to have one entry ''right now''. Despite what many people on Wikipedia seem to believe, '''there is no minimum number of entries (>0) that any category must contain at a given point in time in order to be worth keeping''', and this is especially true when it functions as part of a broader categorization system, as this category does in relation to [[Category:Short stories by year]].
::::As for the implicit conclusion of this claim, that this category is not useful, I counter that it is eminently useful to anyone interested in knowing which short stories were written in the year 794. Just because you personally don't find utility in that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility to someone else; that's why I created it in the first place, because in fact I was trying to figure out what the earliest short story is (on Wikipedia at least) and realized [[Category:Short stories by year]] is woefully incomplete for anything before the 17th century. [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Merge''', this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Merge''', this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', but I suggest also creating [[:Category:1st-millennium short stories]] including e.g. {{c|Parables of Jesus‎}} and {{c|Parables in the Quran‎}}. [[:Category:1st-millennium literature]] could also hold a new [[:Category:1st-millennium Chinese literature]] with subcats from [[:Category:Literature by Imperial Chinese dynasty]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color:#FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 09:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', but I suggest also creating [[:Category:1st-millennium short stories]] including e.g. {{c|Parables of Jesus‎}} and {{c|Parables in the Quran‎}}. [[:Category:1st-millennium literature]] could also hold a new [[:Category:1st-millennium Chinese literature]] with subcats from [[:Category:Literature by Imperial Chinese dynasty]]. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color:#FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] 09:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:04, 28 April 2024

< April 21
April 23 >

April 22

Category:Canadian women translators

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to [1]Mason (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As I stated in the prior discussion, I wasn't too attached to the need for subbing translators by gender — the only other country that has any siblings is India, and even then only for women — but the issues around these were different enough from the issues around the other batch (which hinged on whether subbing Canadian translators out by province of residence was necessary or not) that it didn't make sense to bundle these in with that. But they're still not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would certainly say that gender can have an impact how things are phrased in translation, just like male and female authors write things differently (I can often guess, but I haven't done a blind test so don't trust me haha). I'm reminded of the fact that Mary Ann Evans began her literary career as a translator of Das Leben Jesu, but felt compelled to adopt the male pseudonym George Eliot to avoid the negative bias against female writers and translators at the time. But, is this significant enough to need to categorise translators by gender? Or do we think the original author's gender has much more creative influence than the translator? In practice, I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat: English Wikipedia indeed has a rather limited Category:Male translators by nationality tree, and none for women. By contrast, Commons has huge c:Category:Female translators and c:Category:Male translators trees. Whether C is overcomplicating things, or acknowledging how defining gender can be in translations in a way English Wikipedia fails to do, I don't know. I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. Incidentally, I changed target 1's parent Category:Canadian non-fiction writers to Category:Canadian writers, because translators can obviously also translate fiction. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with major depressive disorder

Nominator's rationale: Although "People with major depressive disorder" was deleted before disability was added to WP:EGRS, I'm nominating because the old discussion still applies. I don't think that this category is defining for any of the three people in the category. If not deleted, it should be merged to Category:People with mood disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:People_diagnosed_with_clinical_depression Mason (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges completed in 1179

Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 6#Category:Bridges completed in 1192, but not tagged. Merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between kind of disability and age. Mason (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My response here is roughly the same as my response to congenital--
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that child amputee status (this is a person who has an amputation that occurs AFTER they are born but before they are an adult) is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap31-01.asp, https://www.waramps.ca/ways-we-help/child-amputees/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030589820321490, https://www.independentliving.org/donet/51_international_child_amputee_network.html
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/, https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaela_Lulea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_O%27Riordan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Mullins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisako_Nakamura
Etc.
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27ts Calculatedfire (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children. Mason (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:59, 23 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]
      "Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't. Jim Killock (talk) 11:48, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb. Jim Killock (talk) 11:50, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:794 short stories

Nominator's rationale: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this.
Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so Category:794 works is more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to point out you did not address any of my questions. I will take this to mean that you are dropping the arguments you made above and instead offering new arguments.
Second, I would like to point out that the very first item in the "Do's" of WP:CATDD is to Use the most specific categories possible., as per WP:CATSPECIFIC.

The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories.

The assumption here is that this category is inherently bound to only contain one entry. there is nothing about the category label—short stories in a specific year—that entails this. It just happens to have one entry right now. Despite what many people on Wikipedia seem to believe, there is no minimum number of entries (>0) that any category must contain at a given point in time in order to be worth keeping, and this is especially true when it functions as part of a broader categorization system, as this category does in relation to .
As for the implicit conclusion of this claim, that this category is not useful, I counter that it is eminently useful to anyone interested in knowing which short stories were written in the year 794. Just because you personally don't find utility in that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility to someone else; that's why I created it in the first place, because in fact I was trying to figure out what the earliest short story is (on Wikipedia at least) and realized is woefully incomplete for anything before the 17th century. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish Cypriot people

Nominator's rationale: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow. NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note Category:1754 establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1748 establishments in the Mughal Empire are untagged, and I don't have time to tag them right now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First Nations drawing artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Studies of right-wing politics

Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
    Here are some examples:
    Bluetik (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm would it be appropriate to Rename this to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics? Because that makes more sense than "studies". NLeeuw (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Within Category:Political scientists by field of study there is already Category:Academics and writers on far-right extremism. Does the new category have a wider scope than that, i.e. not only about far-right? – Fayenatic London 15:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fayenatic london
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg: Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers Bluetik (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for identifying that! Bluetik (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars of Greek language

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
Copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @Fayenatic london or @Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann >talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex lesbians

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings (Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? --MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Third-person view

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Chilean people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with non-binary gender identities

Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name Category:Non-binary writers, not Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --MikutoH talk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egypt–Gaza border

Nominators rational: More specific and similar. See Category:Israel–Gaza Strip border and Category:Egypt–Gaza Strip border crossings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22&oldid=1221267502"