Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandraAVX (talk | contribs) at 08:53, 9 April 2024 (→‎Category:Non-binary lesbians: edit comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Category:Wikipedians by sexuality

Nominator's rationale: This seems unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:49, 7 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]

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]

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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

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=1218027862"