Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Women foos: men foos
Line 218: Line 218:
*:How much time do you think is reasonable? This category was created in 2019. I chose the nom targets for this page based on the properties of the single page in the category. @[[User:Scribblingwoman|Scribblingwoman]], do you have a solution for how to manage the current tree? [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
*:How much time do you think is reasonable? This category was created in 2019. I chose the nom targets for this page based on the properties of the single page in the category. @[[User:Scribblingwoman|Scribblingwoman]], do you have a solution for how to manage the current tree? [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
* For consistency it may be helpful to add some siblings to the nomination. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
* For consistency it may be helpful to add some siblings to the nomination. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Are there guidelines anywhere about the minimum size for categories? If not, we should try at least to be consistent with general practice. We have here a category with two well-populated sub-categories, some thinly populated, and some barely populated. But is it general practice to weed small subcategories when they are consistent in structure and intent with larger ones, as is the case here? At the very least, if this one is merged than [[:Category:Austrian atheist writers]] should also be merged as it also contains only one article. Again, I see no difficulty with editors creating a scaffolding for later editors to fill in. I don't understand the conclusion that if something is not fleshed out relatively quickly, it must be removed. Something can be notable without having many editors working on it. (For the record, I have not worked on atheist writers.) — [[User:Scribblingwoman|<span style="color:#666699;">scribbling</span>]][[User_talk:Scribblingwoman|<span style="color:#666666;">woman</span>]] 02:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Pride parades in Nevada ====
==== Category:Pride parades in Nevada ====

Revision as of 02:57, 13 February 2024

< February 8
February 10 >

February 9

Category:1913 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season

Nominator's rationale: There's only a page and the template in here. I've added the main page to the 1913 football season category. Mason (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be nominated together with its siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; part of a well-established, highly-structured categorization scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Others in similar situation should also be nominated. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is one of thousands like it; I do not understand why we want to stray from order to disorder, rather than stay orderly and organized. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fascists by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is a redudant layer. Mason (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brooklyn Hills football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 pages in category. Let'srun (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have added a "see also" note directly in the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Staten Island Cricket Club football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in category Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have added a "see also" note directly in the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Christian universalists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SMALLCAT and the fact that it diffuses multiple navigation schemes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small cat is no longer wikipedia policy. What navigation schemes does it diffuse? Mason (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, isolated single-article category. The 15th-century sibling should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breton historians

Nominator's rationale: Per C2C: Norm is to use Historians of SUBJECT, I'm not sure if this can be speedied because the main page is called List of Breton historians. But as named it could be historians who are ethnically Bretons Mason (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is clearly less ambiguous. The list may be renamed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Breton categories are often filled with people based on their link with the region rather than reliable information on their ethnicity anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:6th-century Indian non-fiction writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Redudant category layer. Each only has FOOian-century Indian scholars in it Mason (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Vietnamese calligraphers

Nominator's rationale: There are only 4 unique people across these three categories. Upmerge for now Mason (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Korean calligraphers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories. Mason (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century Chinese musicians

Nominator's rationale: I propose broadening these categories to include musicians of any nationality. Mason (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. I am surprised these categories do not exist yet. The articles should be manually added more specifically to musicians by dynasty categories instead of generally to Category:Ancient Chinese musicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-human characters in video games

Nominator's rationale: Classifying things as "non-human" fails WP:NONDEF. It's about what characters are not, rather than being about what they are. The subcategories are indeed defining, since they refer to what a character is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Video game characters by species, and purge any articles from the resulting container category. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't really have an issue with this either as it would be made a pure container category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Rupert Murdoch

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Already handled at Category:Murdoch family, spouse categories are incredibly rare except for royalty etc. --woodensuperman 13:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Categories like these are not only intended for royalty. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, articles are already in Category:Murdoch family and perfectly fine there. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this an inherently limited category? It's not like Murdoch will be having 4 or 5 more wives so there is little potential for growth. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as Liz notes, there is little to no potential for growth here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female soldiers

Nominator's rationale: A complete WP:OVERLAPCAT. It used to be a redirect, but since User:AHI-3000 thinks it should be its own category, we should probably come to a consensus about whether it should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. "Female soldiers" sounds grammatically better than "women soldiers", because "female" is an adjective and "women" is actually a plural noun. I also think this should be done for other occupational categories that are erroneously named with "Women" at the beginning of their page titles. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per AHI-3000, and do not purge Category:Female child soldiers (as it fits under the umbrella "female"). If it is regularly-merged, then do purge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per discussion above. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note As Category:Female soldiers is the newer category, in order to preserve history, the merge should still be executed as I proposed, but then the category renamed to "Female soldiers". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally oppose. I think we should not be having a ton of these renaming women to female simultaneously. Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you oppose changing the name, surely you support both categories not existing at the same time, right? I don't understand why you would oppose even that. I have no preference on what name it ends up as, I just deferred to the one that has been stable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll support the merge in these circumstaces. Mason (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated with no prejuduice to a rename in a larger discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles about multiple people

Nominator's rationale: The current title isn't really defining, as it refers to the article rather than the article subject. The rename would remedy that by making it clear it's talking about the subjects of each article. A move to this name failed in 2011, but for an odd reason - they claimed that 2 people were not a "group". Merriam-Webster defines group as "two or more", so this is flat-out wrong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Without context it is a somewhat odd title, but it is a container category so it won't lead to confusion for editors of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the New York metropolitan area by city

Nominator's rationale: There are towns, townships, cities, and more in this category. Rename accordingly. See related: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_4#Category:American_people_by_city_and_occupation –Aidan721 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of American people by city

Nominator's rationale: Not all places are cities in this category. Rename per prior precedents including Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_4#Category:American_people_by_city_and_occupation. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters by descent

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:G4, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_11#Fictional_characters_by_descent. Formerly they were named e.g. Category:Fictional American people of Chinese descent etc. but that does not really change things. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, SpinnerLaserz, DexDor, Dimadick, Otr500, Carlossuarez46, and Soetermans: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since these have a different naming convention, the editor who recreated these would not have been aware of the prior consensus. But the onus here should really be on the creator to describe why these are different or how they comply with the editing guidelines, otherwise be deleted per WP:G4. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All These have the same combination of WP:OR, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCEGRS as the last time. The reliable sources in Johnny Gat list the character as Asian American but the voice artist is Korean American so Wikipedia editors have made the determination the character is also Korean American. Samurai (Super Friends) is listed under both Japanese and Japanese American super hero categories (without evidence of emigration) but is really defined by being a fictional Samurai so I added him to Category:Fictional samurai. Chloe Frazer actually belongs in the category tree but, in addition to being described as of Indian ancestry, she is also "sexually forward" and a "reckless adventurer"; the ancestry is one line in the backstory among many and not defining. I'm not cherry picking articles here, those were the first three I clicked on. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per RevelationDirect. Dubious confirmation of the characters' descents is a major issue, but even if they were all correct it would fall under WP:OCEGRS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Per RevelationDirect that pretty much covers it all. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In addition to WP:G4, in most cases fictional characters are actually not defined by their ancestry as most have no fictional ancestry specified, with exceptions. They are, however, defined by ethnic stereotypes more often than real people, but that's not what these categories are for. Place Clichy (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Papal States

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category of unclear necessity.
Firstly, the Papal States were never exactly a country in the conventional sense, but more a ragtag collection of territories under the direct rule of the Pope -- so Category:People from the Papal States doesn't have nearly as developed a scheme of subcategories as most real countries do, including virtually no scheme of "XX-century anything from the Papal States" categories for anybody besides the popes themselves. For instance, we don't have a Category:19th-century bishops in the Papal States, or a Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Papal States, or even a Category:19th-century people from the Papal States, to parent this at all.
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, this was created in such a way that it was essentially broken right from the start: it's using one of those automated "Thing by country and century category header" templates that standardize the format of related categories and farm their category parentage off to a module, but said module is not coded to recognize the Papal States as a country at all for the purposes of generating "in the Papal States" categories, meaning it's only generating disabled or redlinked nonsense categories like Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in and Category:19th century in that can't legitimately be created at all -- so I've had to suppress the template's autogenerated categories for being unfixable nonsense, and manually categorize it in parent categories that actually exist, which rather defeats the purpose of even using the template.
So for both of those reasons, it's far from clear that an inherently broken category with very few logical parents would be needed for just two people at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I would agree with you. I would suggest using the categories for bishop in the existing countries, instead, I believe, it was an editors' consensus which led to creation of these categories for non-existing historical states (for example: Category:17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Republic of Geneva or Category:17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Ottoman Empire‎). The Papal States are a historical country, just as much the Republic of Geneva or the Ottoman Empire are. And there's lots of clergy and bishops who lived and died in the State of the Church as it was officialy called. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not against the category per se, the Papal States are generally recognized as a country in its own right until the unification of Italy. However, there are currently only an apostolic administrator and an auxilary bishop in this category, so I am not opposing either. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. If not kept, it should be merged to Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops and Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Papal States. Second, as the person who wrote and maintains the Bishops in Foo templates, I just haven't had the time to add non-current countries to the template. So I don't think that that's a good reason to support deletion. Mason (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Theoretically, all of the Popes who rulled the Papal States, could be added to the category(ies). Governor Sheng (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Latin-language writers

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, all of this is contained in Category:Neo-Latin writers. Modern Latin redirects to Neo-Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Mason (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category was nominated for deletion by the same nominator, and kept less than two months ago. Additionally, the rationale given appears to be erroneous: the category is presumably for modern writers in Latin, not writers of any era in neo-Latin. It doesn't matter what variety of Latin the author writes in, but whether the writing occurs in modern times, here defined by its contents as from the nineteenth century to the present. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last time and P Aculeius. "Modern" is used to modify different terms in the category and article redirect. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Speeches by Bahram Beyzai

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one speech in each, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atheist writers

Nominator's rationale: I think that we should rename this category to make it clearer that these are people who write about the subject of atheism. rather than writers who are atheists. I modeled the rename on Category:Writers on Germanic paganism‎ and other categories like it in Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area. Mason (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would require quite a bit of purging too. The current category rather contains writers who are atheists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although this page includes the phrase "People who write about atheism, the page for the subcategory Category:English atheist writers contains the following: "English writers who are or were atheists." There seems to be a central confusion about whether the category should refer to the beliefs of the writers, or their subject matter. No doubt there would be considerable overlap between Category:Atheist writers and Category:Writers on Atheism as many of the writers whom editors think to categorize as atheists write about atheism, but the two are by no means interchangeable. I think the phrase "People who write about atheism" should be changed to "Writers who are or were atheists" as that reflects more natural and unambiguous language usage. For example, if the proposed change were made, how would an editor characterize a religious writer who wrote against atheism? Category:Atheist writers would be misleading. And confusing, if combined with a religious category. — scribblingwoman 18:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, how do you suggest we resolve the contradiction? The intersection between being an atheist and being a writer isn't a defining one, whereas being a writer about athesim is. Mason (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - that is a complete redefinition of the category which has no direct connection to the current content. It would be better to instead create/propose the desired category, and separately submit this one for deletion if it is warranted (I don't see how it would be - they can live side-by-side). Repurposing this category with a rename is the wrong way to handle it. edit: I've corrected the categorization of this so that it reflects correctly that this is not intended as a subject area category. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch atheist writers

Nominator's rationale: Small category that's unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would be a piecemeal change. Category:Atheist writers has nine national subcategories, two of which only contain one name each (this one and Category:Austrian atheist writers) and two of which only contain two (Category:Albanian atheist writers and Category:Colombian atheist writers). Three list four names each (Category:French atheist writers, Category:German atheist writers, Category:Russian atheist writers; only two list more than a dozen each (Category:American atheist writers and Category:English atheist writers). One could argue that this is an under-used category; personally, I have no issue with giving categories time to be populated. My main point is that the approach needs to be consistent. — scribblingwoman 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How much time do you think is reasonable? This category was created in 2019. I chose the nom targets for this page based on the properties of the single page in the category. @Scribblingwoman, do you have a solution for how to manage the current tree? Mason (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency it may be helpful to add some siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there guidelines anywhere about the minimum size for categories? If not, we should try at least to be consistent with general practice. We have here a category with two well-populated sub-categories, some thinly populated, and some barely populated. But is it general practice to weed small subcategories when they are consistent in structure and intent with larger ones, as is the case here? At the very least, if this one is merged than Category:Austrian atheist writers should also be merged as it also contains only one article. Again, I see no difficulty with editors creating a scaffolding for later editors to fill in. I don't understand the conclusion that if something is not fleshed out relatively quickly, it must be removed. Something can be notable without having many editors working on it. (For the record, I have not worked on atheist writers.) — scribblingwoman 02:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pride parades in Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BBC World Service foreign language

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to make of this category. Should we just add 'stations' to the end of the name? Is this just a collection of World Service stations, in which case 'foreign language' isn't really necessary. Fuddle (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GA-Class Nazi Germany articles

Nominator's rationale: These articles should not be manually added, but added through WikiProject banner templates. These (as far as I can tell) are not connected to any task force or WikiProject. WP:WikiProject Nazi Germany redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany but Template:WikiProject Germany does not have a task force for it. Also while Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation task force exists, there isn't a main category for that task force. Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 25 January 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) 00:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions seems reasonable. I don't have strong opinions. Has anyone asked the Wikiproject what they'd like to do with it? Mason (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist this and drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of Ray Bradbury

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining; WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 10:01, 1 February 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) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of Agatha Christie

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 10:00, 1 February 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) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humor and wit characters

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a complete overlap; humor and wit is by definition comedy. Category was also made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the target: does "comedy" include folklore tales? Because that is what a number of articles are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the characters aren't explicitly comedic, they should probably just be purged. Calling a non-comedic character humorous or not, is personal opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 1 February 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) 03:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stand-up comedy concert films

Nominator's rationale: There are no separate Categories for non-concert films of stand-up comedy, so the disambiguation is unneeded. The Category was created in the early year of 2006. Recorded, edited and released long-form stand-up comedy acts are ubiquitously referred to as "specials". Separately, Wikipedia defines a concert as being a live musical performance in front of an audience. DA1 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The Primetime Emmy Awards nominates comedy specials under the category Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Special (Pre-Recorded), and the Golden Globe Awards began in 2024 the Best Performance in Stand-Up Comedy on Television. DA1 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 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) 03:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vikkstar123

Nominator's rationale: Requesting deletion per WP:OCEPON. There are a total of 3 related articles combined in two subcats which already interlink to one another. No need for the parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Women foos

Nominator's rationale: "Women" is a noun, "female" is an adjective. There are probably many categories I missed, but this is a good start. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've started to think about this some more as the nom has been coming up. (I personally prefer being called a women, than being described as female).
1) These renames are going to wreck havoc on a ton of pre-existing templates, which just makes more work. Going from FOO female/woman to female/women FOO occupation splits the occupation category.
2) I do not want to see this trickle down into categories called Fooian females, because there are numerous undertones. I would like the previsions discussions related to these renames to be linked here.
3) I would really like some feedback from more women focused wikipedia groups.
4) I think women makes it clearer that being a women in the occupation is a defining feature, rather than someone who is female. Mason (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "women" refers to gender, while "female" refers to sex. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support selected moves. Women does go in front of nouns. A recent phenomenon is to put "female" in front instead of women, which has only been happening in the past few decades. The thing about this change is that some fields still have "women" as more common.
Here is a listing on Google Ngrams to consider the most common:
An issue is that "women" applies only to adults whereas "female" is inclusive to children (girls). We had this issue on the List of female monarchs, which previously used "women monarchs" and was moved to "female".
To reply to The ed17's mention that "female" refers to sex and "women" gender, that point does not follow consensus on Women, where "female" refers to both gender and sex. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As an 80-year-old Brit, my initial inclination was to use "female" as a qualifier, in both articles and categories on Wikipedia, but as a result of discussions with experts in the field such as SusunW I now frequently use "women" as a pseudo-adjective. For most sports though, "female" is widely used internationally and is generally more appropriate for Wikipedia categories, see Category:Sportswomen by sport. I would not support these being changed to "women", e.g. women baseball players. The many existing categories including "women" and "female" function well and are widely used. I strongly suggest they should be maintained.--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as noun modifiers are so commonplace in informal writing, formal writing, and our category tree that the rationale is wrong. If there are other reasons to prefer "female", I'd love to her them. The Ngram analysis is nice, but we shouldn't choose one form over the other if the Ngrams show that they're close and there are other reasons (e.g. consistency) to stick with the slightly less common version. I would feel differently if one form were vastly more common than the other. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: If you look at the history of women vs. female as a modifier, it dates to the 14th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary woman first appeared as an adjective in 1382.[1] According to Webster's Dictionary,[2] Henry Fowler, who wrote the 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage, was the first scholar to insist that woman was a noun and female was an adjective. (Interestingly he argued that female suffrage was the correct term, and that women who opposed that phraseology were whiny, but the largest global organization pressing for suffrage was the International Woman Suffrage Alliance.) Journalists have varying opinions on whether woman can be a noun modifier.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] Scholars have also debated the question[8], [9] and dictionaries disagree as well. According to "Grammar Girl" Mignon Fogarty Webster's (their article on usage indicates it's not cut and dry) and American Heritage indicate woman is a noun, Dictionary.com says woman can be used as a noun or adjective, and the Oxford English Dictionary states that woman can be used as an appositive noun.[10] Guardian reporter Maddie York, whose personal preference is for woman to be restricted to use as a noun, states that the Chamber's Dictionary considers the usage of female and woman to be interchangeable and the Collin's Dictionary lists woman as a modifier.[11] Given this history there is no logical reason the categories should be renamed to choose one word over another. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most/all of the various different arguments above, and the sheer hassle of catching all of them, which I don't think the nom does. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the oppose votes above. Trying to avoid repeating the arguments. -- Rohini (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the various arguments given, things are not nearly as cut and dry as the nomination claims. It's amazing that somehow it was assumed that whoever made all these categories was unable to distinguish a noun from an adjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Making such a change would be a prime example of trying to make language fit a rigid idea of consistency and correctness, rather than reflecting how language is actually used and understood by editors and readers. And in many cases, changing "women" to "female" would be borderline offensive, as it would abruptly draw attention to biological sex in contexts where it is not relevant. Note the difference between "She was the first woman astronaut to orbit the moon" and "Accommodating the bodies of the first female astronauts presented space suit designers with a new set of issues." Each of these sentences, I would argue, uses the best word in the context. Would support going with common usage, which is rarely consistent and often "incorrect". — scribblingwoman 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. As the founder of WP:WPWW in 2014, I can tell you that we had this conversation back then when deciding about creating new categories to support our WikiProject's work. Academics who focus on women's literature were part of the discussion (including off-wiki). In addition, my point of view is supported by the oppose arguments presented here by others. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the women/female subcategories, or Add a "man" (for consistency with "woman") subcategory as well. Or have both "male"/"female" subcats. Either way we should be both equal-opportunity (subcats for both sexes/genders) and consistent (man/woman or male/female). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the women/female subcategories — and the men/male subcategories (as Ipigott mentioned on my talk page), where they exist and are irrelevant to being a foo. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1910s business films

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:11, 1 February 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) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1910 government budgets

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Not enough content to support diffusing this decade by year Mason (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Small categories are more useful than decade-level categories for economic topics. The budgets should also be included in Category:x year in politics categories. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 1 February 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) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for Now without objection to recreation later should more articles be published per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpine skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics

Nominator's rationale: There was only 1 women's and men's alpine skiing event the 1936 Winter Olympics. Merge in the spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-14th century in sports

Nominator's rationale: Obvious example of WP:OCMISC. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seasons in hockey

Nominator's rationale: We don't need to categorize the intersection of seasons for ice hockey and field hockey. Not useful in any way. Merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Field hockey and ice hockey don't share anything besides the name. They belong to a larger family of Stick sports, which also include lacrosse, bandy, hurling, rink hockey etc. Place Clichy (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seasons in United States Virgin Islands soccer

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mesoamerican music

Nominator's rationale: Only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I doubt that the category is useful, and would not mind deleting it. But Category:Mesoamerican art is part of a category tree for visual arts. Music is not a visual medium. Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. Category:Mesoamerican art is defined as "the artistic expression documented for Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures and civilizations" and already includes Maya dance. The term of art is inherently ambiguous between visual arts stricto sensu and art at large. Place Clichy (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Neutral. I don't feel strongly about that one, I'll defer to other editors. Place Clichy (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Oppose per Dimadick. We have a very long-standing, useful and necessary convention that in category names "art" means visual art. Place Clichy, we absolutely should not screw that up, or there will be chaos, with hundreds if not thousands of nominations. Instead we should do as we do everywhere else, and set up Category:Mesoamerican arts (or similar title, but with "arts"), with a visual art sub-cat, & the dance and music, plus no doubt other stuff. Marcocapelle, with all your experience, I'm slightly amazed and horrified you didn't pick up on this. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge target would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charities based in Romania

Nominator's rationale: 1 entry as per WP:SMALLCAT. Suggest merge with parent. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seasons in Cook Islands football

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seasons in Guinean football

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Merge/delete. The lone articles are already in the parent trees, so an additional merge is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_9&oldid=1206776936"