Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 166: Line 166:
*:::I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Smasongarrison|Smasongarrison]] There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. [[User:Bohemian Baltimore|Bohemian Baltimore]] ([[User talk:Bohemian Baltimore|talk]]) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Smasongarrison|Smasongarrison]] There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. [[User:Bohemian Baltimore|Bohemian Baltimore]] ([[User talk:Bohemian Baltimore|talk]]) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*I oppose a ''merger'', but would be fine with simply ''deleting'' the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a ''merger'', because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However, [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_16#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians|"Heterosexual Wikipedians"]] has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation ====
==== Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation ====

Revision as of 02:42, 12 April 2024

< April 6
April 8 >

April 7

Category:People with acquired Guyanese citizenship

Nominator's rationale: I don't think any of the articles in this category actually belong here. They all appear to be birthright citizens (per Guyanese nationality law#Acquiring Guyanese nationality, having a parent with Guyanese citizenship is enough for citizenship regardless of one's place of birth). Upmerging is not needed, because they are all already in subcategories of Category:Guyanese people. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political posters of Italy

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single non-free file. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As it is, it's a convenient way to tie it into both European posters and the politics of Italy. It's the politics of Italy that's the much stronger connection. Admittedly it's near-empty, because we generally avoid hosting media on WP, but it's also a good tie to Commons, where we have many more items. I don't see any advantage to this merge, other than a rather pointless nod to SMALLCAT. It also singles out Italy (or is the plan, as usual, to remove all countries here, one by one?) when the other countries have very few images in their similar categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge. The category isn't helpful with only a page in it. Mason (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aphex Twin songs

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Category:11th-century Indian medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: There are only a handful of Medieval medical doctors from India. I think we should upmerge for now until there's a critical mass Mason (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indian in "Indian people" may or may not be associated the modern Republic of India. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand that point you are trying to make. No one is saying these doctors are from the modern Republic of India. Mason (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Indian people by century feeds ultimately to Category:Indian people and thereupon Category:India (and not any other modern-day successors). Are these physicians Indian if we are to equate India with the ROI? 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I think I now understand what's happening with your dispute over Hong Kong versus China. That's not how nationality works for nesting. So there's no built-in assumption with categories that people nested in India are necessarily citizens of the modern nation of India. Mason (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Renaming Indian to South Asian would require a broader discussion. The current nomination is about a much smaller issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like one of the entries is about a doctor who was Bengali. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? All Bengali people were Indian people until 1947. It is not a mistake that Chakrapani Datta is currently in Category:11th-century Indian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the alternative target. Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 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]

Category:Indian scientific authors

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection dual upmerge; the category description is part of the job of being an academic. The description says says: "Indian scientists who contribute their scientific publications, among others in scientific journals and magazines, in biology, chemistry and physics, and so on. authors who write scientific books etc, may be categorized in the related scientific fields at Category:Indian science writers." Mason (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, articles are already in more specific academics categories if applicable and ought to be in Category:Indian science writers if that is applicable. If anyone wants to volunteer to check more than 400 articles manually in order to find very few articles that aren't properly categorized yet then by all means, but I don't think we should make that a requirement. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Delete is fine with me. Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh bisexual people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (underpopulated) occupation in here, which is not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War criminals by nationality

Nominator's rationale: These are the same thing. Am I missing something? If I'm not, I'm happy to add the rest of the categories to the list. Mason (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These categories are meant for war criminals who were never formally convicted of war crimes. It exists for the same reason why Category:War criminals is seperate from Category:People convicted of war crimes. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT asexual people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity. (Also for the emtied categories, I've nominated them to make it clear that the category shouldn't be recreated Mason (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merger as well. The fact these were created WITHOUT much discussion is deeply unfortunate and needs to be reversed. I would also say that the said user needs to be warned. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison No, they aren't. There are plenty of asexuals who identify also as lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. There are plenty of asexuals who identify as cis and heteroromantic / straight. Wikipedia should not erase queer asexuals. Being both queer and asexuals is a non-trivial intersection, a minority within a minority. There's a reason that terms like homoromantic and biromantic are used in the asexual community; because asexuals queers exist. Likewise, it is flat out false that all intersex people are LGBT. There are plenty of intersex people who identify as cisgender heterosexuals. Being both intersex and LGBT is likewise a meaningful and defining intersection of two oppressed identities. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity and manually emptied the LGBT aromantic people category aready). Raladic (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but do not merge to Category:Gay men because articles are already in the tree of Category:Gay men by nationality and/or by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this. I've gone through and checked, and all the members of the "Asexual gay men" category are already in other branches of the "Gay men" category tree, so they only need to be merged to "Asexual men" ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep asexual gay men, merge the rest, per Marco. --MikutoH talk! 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "Keep asexual gay men" in line with what Marco says? A triple intersection like this is a tough sell under EGRS. Mason (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep is not in line with what I said. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I misread and confused with another commenter in the intersex thread saying "...with exception of...". Anyways it's not a triple intersection essentially, since both identities can complement each other. --MikutoH talk! 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, already covered by LGBTQIA terminology and shouldn't be othered in the category trees. Suonii180 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your error stems from the misunderstanding that is how we consider LGBT as encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus. It just hasn't been renamed because consensus for what to rename it to (LGBT vs LGBTQ vs LGBTQ+ and so on) has been difficult (you can find a whole lot of history of rename discussions at LGBT.
    Since Asexual, Aromantic and and Intersex are inherently part of that community umbrella, it is redundant to say that someone who is Asexual is also LGBTQIA+ with a different category, hence the categories you created misrepresent this and imply that they were not already part of the umbrella by othering them out. Raladic (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom assuming the nominator meant to say "asexual" and not "intersex" (AFAICT all of the categories listed above are about "asexual", not "intersex"); in any case, I support ditching the weird "LGBT asexual" categories (either merging them per nom, or just removing them if the articles are already better categorized in other ways as Marcocapelle suggests). -sche (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by sexuality

Nominator's rationale: This seems unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Raladic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT but purge the last subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People who "who reject a sexual preference label" are very explicitly not defining themselves as LGBT, so that subcat doesn't belong in the LGBT category. Second, not all asexuals identify as L, G, B or T. Plenty of asexuals are cisgender and identify as straight or heteroromantic. Erasing queer asexuals is homophobic and transphobic. Being both queer and asexual is a relevant intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the above comment by Raladic "LGBT [i]s encompassng all parts of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella per current Wikipedia consensus." No one is erasing queer people or asexual people with these categories. As a queer person, I appreciate your concern about representation. However, I think calling the current category homophobic and transphobic is missing the point. Mason (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison We could avoid the debate over whether all asexuals and all intersex people are LGBT by merging the LGBT asexuals and LGBT intersex people categories, but keeping the categories for people who specifically identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. As a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender member of the LGBTQ community, representation is indeed my concern. Thank you. Although, wouldn't people who reject a label by definition also be rejecting an LGBT label? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your rhetorical questions. Mason (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison There's a single question. Why should people who reject a label be labeled as LGBT, per your baffling insistence that no label = LGBT? That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a merger, but would be fine with simply deleting the "by sexuality" category. I can't support a merger, because the categories, as named, have different scopes, and I'm not talking about the question of whether LGBT includes B, or L, or A, or whatnot, I'm talking about the other category: heterosexuality (for example) is a sexuality, but not (in most cases) "LGBT", so "Wikipedians by sexuality"—as presently named—is scoping itself to somethng broader than "LGBT Wikipedians". However, "Heterosexual Wikipedians" has been deleted for not being related to improving articles, and "Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label" says (for better or worse) that it's only for LGBT-aligned people, so I see that there's nothing but LGBT sexualities to go in the "by sexuality" category, making it useless/redundant to the "LGBT Wikipedians" category, so I am fine with just deleting the "by sexuality" category. -sche (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender women by sexual orientation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_2#LGBT_people_by_sexual_orientation_and_nationality Mason (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this upmerger as proposed. It would be more useful to users this way. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be more in line with recent CfD outcomes ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to eliminate the newly created Category:Transgender people by sexual orientation rather than merging into it. It's just another unhelpful intermediate category level.--Trystan (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add that to the nom! @Trystan:Mason (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I support as revised.--Trystan (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Raladic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the first two are redundant category layer with only a few subcategories. The last is an odd mix of very unrelated subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge, but also reparent subcategories in Category:Transgender people by sexual orientation (as well as transgender lesbians and transgender gay men) to Category:Transgender sexuality as well. Please tag/sort them to be grouped to gether --MikutoH talk! 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is defining. There's no reason to erase gay/lesbian and bi people within the trans community. Being both queer (sexually) and trans is a double minority. It is relevant and defining, not a trivial intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is erasing being both a gender and sexual minority. The merging of the category places both elements on equal footing in the main category rather than isolating each. Mason (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is erased, people can be part of multiple, separate categories as is already the case. Raladic (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents

Nominator's rationale: I think this means 'Politicians of Chinese descent who became President of a country', which seems like too narrow a category. GiantSnowman 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category into Category:Politicians of Chinese descent instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. ~~

Category:Genocidal massacres

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - the genocidal massacre article doesn't offer a firm number-based benchmark and it could be rightfully stated that any sizeable massacre is genocidal. As such, that categorization also opens the gates for original research. Brandmeistertalk 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, WP:OVERLAPCAT. Brandmeistertalk 14:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Category:Sexism by country in general provides easy navigation for related article per country. Having one article in a cat is not a solid ground for merger or deletion especially as most of these countries in the nom has very low coverage here, which can be improved rather than erased. In general I do not think the merger will improve anything but will limit the reader access to the entries from this countries at Category:Sexism by country FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wollaton Wagonway

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: "Conservative" has a party-political meaning in the United Kingdom and is therefore an inappropriate description for what is known as Masorti Judaism in the UK. For instance, in the bio on Maurice Glasman, Baron Glasman, who is a prominent member of Masorti UK, he should be categorised as a British Conservative Jew, but that doesn't sit easily with him being also a prominent member of the British Labour Party. Headhitter (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I note that main article Conservative Judaism says Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside North America). The UK is outside North America, so Masorti Judaism makes sense for this catname. NLeeuw (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Home-made definition of "Eastern European", ranging from Azerbaijani to Montenegrin to Czech to Estonian; it has no siblings like Category:Western European diaspora in the United States or Category:Southern European diaspora in the United States (it seems that everything except Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey is considered "Eastern European" already). NLeeuw (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-Bangladesh joint production films

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a slightly different name of a category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Category:American-Canadian joint production. Films that are joint productions of more than one country are certainly categorized for each relevant country on its own, but do not get special "X+Y joint production" categories -- since there are close to 200 countries in the world and all of their film industries engage in some degree of multinational coproduction with other countries' film industries, scaling this out to its logical endpoint would require the creation of between 30 to 40 thousand categories for every possible combination of two countries. And then we would have to start catting for three-country, four-country and five-country combos too, which is just an untenable nightmare. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, and joint production is also a trivial characteristic of a film. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Griffith family

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: just deleted by User:Liz (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was supposed to be deleted on March 20 and again on April 3. Something's not working. Yours6700 (talk) 01:05, 7 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:Academics of the College of the Resurrection

Nominator's rationale: To match other staff categories in Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in England Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the parent category is Academics by university or college in England. Staff has a *very* different meaning. From looking at the contents, these people are academics. If anything, I think that other categories should be renamed to reflect that these folks are academic staff/faculty. Mason (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I update my vote to oppose. Mason (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake

Nominator's rationale: Per main article move. Article's name is now 2023 Al Haouz earthquake. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer, there is nothing in the category but the main article and the above subcategory. If kept of course rename, then it is a simple matter of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, it'll leave the subcat as the only one without a main category. But I'm still for renaming. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subcat still has three other parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation would be very much appreciated :) If there is no further participation by next week, I think a rename (per WP:C2D) with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion is the appropriate close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think that there's now just enough to support a category, but I don't feel strongly. Mason (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_7&oldid=1218502365"