Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 320: Line 320:
:*:It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
:*:It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
:*:As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:*:As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Internet censorship in the Arab world ====
==== Category:Internet censorship in the Arab world ====

Revision as of 20:59, 27 April 2024

< April 25
April 27 >

April 26

Category:Virginia dynasty

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh terrorism in Austria

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently the category has only one article, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
    It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
    As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet censorship in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 4/6 items are just redirects which are all already in Category:Internet censorship by country, as is Internet censorship in Syria. That leaves only Internet censorship in the Arab Spring, which should probably be renamed "during" rather than "in", because it was an event, not a location. We could dual merge it to Category:Internet censorship in Africa and Category:Internet censorship in Asia. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public baths in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab military ranks

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Inappropriate intersection of Category:Military ranks by country (where almost all articles are already in), and Category:Arabic words and phrases (where all other articles are in, except Ispahsalar, which is in Category:Persian words and phrases because it's not even an Arabic word). NLeeuw (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a strange mix of military ranks by country and non-military Arab-language titles or offices. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science and technology in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in siblings Category:Science and technology in Asia by country and Category:Science and technology in Africa by country. Category:Arab inventions is already a child of Category:Asian inventions and Category:African inventions, children of Category:Science and technology in Asia and Category:Science and technology in Africa, respectively. Arabic Wikipedia is not specific or exclusive to the so-called "Arab world"; anyone on Earth can access and edit it (and they do). NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection, illustrated by a lack of of overarching articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional West Asian people

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan diaspora

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan families

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh monarchs

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination is to merge Sikh monarchs, so the fact whether or not they were Sikhs becomes moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to or describing people and their citizenship. ARoseWolf 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadians of Jordanian descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, as a duplicate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be merged too daSupremo 11:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh terrorism by continent

Nominator's rationale: delete, too few subcategories and articles in this category tree. Merging is not necessary, the subcategories are already in Category:Sikh terrorism by country. Only article 1985 Narita International Airport bombing needs to be moved to Category:Sikh terrorism manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archetypal pedagogy

Nominator's rationale: delete, only the eponymous article and Clifford Mayes belong here, and these two are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jungian pedagogues

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. I don't think this category is clearly defined, and even if it were, I don't think that having only a single person in the category is helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom, but one of the targets may be deleted (see discussion above this one) and then it will become single merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Psychology educators. The second target should be deleted per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_26&oldid=1221094205"