Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

[edit]

Category:Vaccine controversies

[edit]
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: keep. No prejudice against re-nominating the category to rename to Category:Vaccination controversies. I simply saw no consensus for that rename at this time. (non-admin closure) ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main parent article vaccine hesitancy, recently renamed in line with WHO and other sources. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that most of them are not controversies, hence the consensus to move, e.g. MMR autism controversy and vaccine controversies to titles that do not include the suggestion they are controversies. Example: California Senate Bill 277 is not a vaccine controversy, it's health legislation prompted by vaccine hesitancy. CEASE therapy is not a vaccine controversy, it is a form of quackery founded on bogus claims of a link between  MMR vaccine and autism. Jacobson v. Massachusetts is not a vaccine controversy, it's a ruling on mandatory vaccination. The name "controversies" is grossly misleading. And the decisive argument is that the parent article is no longer called vaccine controversies, but vaccine hesitancy. Your routine contrarianism on anti-vaccine article notwithstanding, this is blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While a bill itself cannot be a controversy, there was most definitely controversy regarding SB 277, and court cases like Jacobson v. Massachusetts are obviously controversial. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And most of them are not related in any way to controversies. Plus, the parent article has now moved. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Vaccination controversies - The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that there have been vaccine/vaccination controversies. That is indisputable, regardless of how one feels about it. These controversies have played out in the public sphere, largely outside the purview of the medical community. It's pretty clear from the rather vituperative discussions at Talk:Vaccine hesitancy that the nominator has very strong feelings on the subject. I think it's fair to say that he takes offense at the very existence of such controversies.
  • Keep or rename 'Vaccine hesitancy' doesn't cover anything at all. Made up for PR flash cards to show pubic health docs. Dallas66 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this proposal (and the recent renaming of the article) strike me as an effort to rename those controversies out of existence here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the term "Vaccine hesitancy" is so new/obscure and unfamiliar as to leave the average reader bewildered if they come across it as the name of the article and/or category. Very unhelpful. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a reflection of the current terminology in the field. The WHO does not discuss "vaccine controversies", it discusses vaccine hesitancy. Many of the subjects i the category are not controversies. Some are perfectly routine, others are hoaxes or propaganda. Is Melanie's Marvellous Measles a vaccine controversy, or a subject in the sphere of vaccine hesitancy? I would argue very firmly the latter. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As unfortunate as it may be, there have been controversies around vaccination at least since Jenner's time. Some argued (and some still argue) against it from the pulpit as interfering with divine will. Others oppose universal mandatory vaccinations for students as interfering with a parental right to opt-out, ignoring the prisoner's dilemma: "My child will be fine, all the others in class got the shot". Some argue that a specific vaccine might not provide the expected benefit (e.g. the 2017 influenza vaccine). Some argue they might have an adverse reaction to something in it (e.g. albumen). Some argue that an experimental vaccine, no matter the need, should not be used clinically until proven in trials (e.g. recently for ebola virus). While the specifics of each argument differ, and most have little merit in a purely medical sense, we cannot pretend that controversies do not exist. That said, specific cases of quackery, fraud and pseudoscience should probably not be in the category.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not just hesitant about vaccination, he goes around actively promoting the false narrative that it leads to Autism. I understand why some view this whole campaign as problematic, but this is people stirring up controversy, not hesitancy. We should rename the main article back as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This idea of vaccine hesitancy is one of many attempts to influence and control narratives by changing the debate. The problem is that people who believe vaccines cause any number of horrid side effects are not "hesitant" they are all out seeking to make controversies. This adds up to an attempt to rewrite language to steer debate. Like much of the rhetoric in these debates it seems to miss what is really going on. There are deep philosophical ideas at play here, as much about struggles for family autonomy verses an ever encroching state that exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom -- Rename Category:Vaccination controversies. The most obvious case is MMR, which was the result of bad science getting past the academic refereeing process (where it should have been stopped), with the result that what should have been fake news received publicity that it did not deserve. However that happened, so that we have to have articles (and a category). It is certainly true that occasionally vaccines produce an adverse reaction, but non-vaccination also carries a risk, that of getting the disease and suffering disabling complications. For a vaccination programme to be effective, a large proportion of the population needs to be immunised. Where they are not, there is a severe risk of an epidemic. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Correct Venue The oppose votes above indicate that the article is misnamed. OK, submit a requested move on Vaccine hesitancy and reach a consensus for a better name. I'll gladly support renaming this category to match the outcome (whether I agree with it or not). Having different main article and category names hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have a clear opinion about this but I note that a few opposers are actually opposing the rename of the article. @JzG: it might be helpful if you could give a link to the discussion about the article rename so that perhaps we get a better understanding of the article name change. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I sympathise with efforts to redefine this territory I think renaming the article and the category is premature political correctness. Certainly in the UK vaccine hesitancy is not a term commonly used, even in discussion in healthcare circles. We cannot rely on medical usage if it makes it harder for readers to find the articles. If we want to undermine the idea that vaccination is controversial we might do better by dividing the articles in different ways. Perhaps there should be categories for vaccination policy by country? Rathfelder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2019 (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:Biodiversity hotspots

[edit]
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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a biodiversity hotspot is non-defining for many of the articles in this category (e.g. Andes or Caucasus).  Being a biodiversity hotspot is either subjective or is based on a published list in which case it's much better stored in wp as a list (example) than as a category.
See CFD for a somewhat similar category Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_27#Category:Endemic_regions. DexDor (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (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.

@Timrollpickering and DexDor:

This case was closed pretty quickly and with very few editors involved. It is also based on two main claims that are unexplained. These claims requires at least a rudimentary explanation:

  • Why is the designation as a Biodiversy Hotspot subjective?
  • Why is it better to present Biodiversity Hotspots as a wiki-list than a category?

I have no idea where to post this comment other than here. The suggestions in the box above just links to general Wikipages and are useless. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD was closed after it had been open for more than 3 times the minimum. If you don't think it's subjective then how would you decide which mountain ranges (for example) are biodiversity hotspots and which are not? A list can have reference(s) (and notes) with each entry to justify its inclusion. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Hi. I don't know what the minimum time is really, but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about the speedy deletion whatsoever. I myself, do not have any opinion on the matter, I just ask relevant questions.
To answer your question: I would guess that whatever defines a "biodiversity hotspot" would settle the matter in an objective way? If not, it would at least require some sort of basic documentation that it doesn't.
About lists: This might perhaps be a good idea. But where is that list? I can't find any Wikipedia list of Biodiversity Hotspots. RhinoMind (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American supercentenarians

[edit]
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: merge to both parents. I will soft-redirect the current category name to Category:African-American centenarians, as no appetite has been expressed for the deletion of that category (and the number of opinions for upmerging to it in part suggests a preference that it should exist). bd2412 T 03:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no good reason to single out african americans by age. We have a parent cat for Super old Americans that works just fine. This goes back to how the 110Club forum categorizes people into four big groups by color (one of which is Latios, which is not a color, but that is another story). Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 13 articles, this is by far the biggest category of the recent batch of supercentenarian categories nominated at CFD. Any objection which relates specifically to categorising African-Americans by longevity would apply also to Category:African-American centenarians, which has not been nominated. However, given the adverse historical status of African-Americans, it is unsurprising that there is a significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans. So the nominatpor's assertion that there is no good reason to single out african americans by age sounds glib and un-researched. I am well aware of the extent of GRG-cruft around, because a decade ago I initiated the efforts to stop the flood and clean it up; but when I see that a CFD nomination is based on a demonstrable false assertion like this one, I do wonder how much rigour is being applied to the cleanup. "GRG made it, so it must be bad" is not good criterion.
    If, despite the scholarly notability of the topic, editors prefer not to keep the the category, then alternatively Merge to both parents: Category:American supercentenarians and Category:African-American centenarians. The nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any scholarly research on African American super centurions specifically. The cat and universe of potential study subjects is just small. No one is lookkng at the 100 year old articles which presumably exist because the people are otherwise notable beyond being old. Anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: A centurion was a professional officer of the Roman army. We are discussing centenarians, i.e. people who have reached 100 years of age. The fact that you refer twice to something different doesn't give me confidence in your knowledge of the research base ... and your attempt to claim that there isn't specific research on African American super centurions misses the point that there is study on African-American longevity, and this is a significant subset of that group.
Your reply also shows a misunderstanding of how en.wp categories work. The current situation is that all the articles in Category:African-American supercentenarians are already in a Category:African-American centenarians through being in a subcat thereof. A reader who visits Category:African-American centenarians can browse the the supercentenarians by visiting the subcat. This is similar to how. e.g. Category:People from Berlin, Wisconsin is a subcat of Category:People from Green Lake County, Wisconsin.
Your proposal to simply delete Category:African-American supercentenarians without merging to its parents therefore removes the articles from its parents categories. Your nomination gives no reason to do so, and your reply also gives no reason.
Your comment that anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares is disgraceful: it is not up to other editors to tidy up the mess caused by your unjustified removal of articles from a category in which they belong; and your dismissal of it by the remark if anyone cares conveys a disdain either for the integrity of category system or for the topic of longevity in African-American people. Neither sentiment should have any place in the categorisation of any topic on Wikipedia; if you don't care enough about any topic to handle its categories properly, then you should refrain from tinkering with those categories. Your "don't care" efforts here are starting to look like wilfully disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely work with cats and consider them overly complex and often useless. These are some of the most useless and racist I've seen hence the nomination to delete them. Attacks on my knowledge are misplaced - you don't know me or my interests or how widely I read. Centenarians is a strange word and I'm sorry I misspelled it inadvertently with autocorrect. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: You are quite entitled to consider categories useless, if you choose to do so. However, unless and until there is a WP:Consensus to remove the category system, please do not disrupt it.
I have no information on your state of knowledge other that what you chose to display here, and I make no judgement on anything other than what you have chose to display here, which is unimpressive.
Your latest remark that these categories are racist is extraordinary. In what ways is it racist?
Do you believe that significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl I operated at MfD and AfD where deletion is almost always the discussion. This merging of categories is very new to me, in an area I don't worry about much or find very useful. You have been nothing but condescending; dismissive and rude to me as a CfD newcomer just trying to clean up a mess in one topic area. Enjoy ruling your little area of Wikipedia. I doubt I'll bother to come back to CfD. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:American supercentenarians and Category:African-American centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that African-American supercentenarians are somehow not African-American centenarians? Or that they are not American supercentenarians? Because deletion is a valid option only if you believe both those things to be true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one nominated the even more silly centenarians categories only because no one was looking at such pages. The Supercentarians pages generally exist only because the people got over 110 while the 100+ year old people with pages presumably are notable for other reasons and just happened to live past 100. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Legacypac: You are quite entitled to regard any set of categories as silly, if you want to. However, decisions on on en.wp are made by WP:CONSENSUS, not by one editor's views. So unless and until there is a consensus to delete the centenarian categories, there is no grounds to remove from them the oldest members of that set, as you are determined to do. And this CFD does not propose deleting Category:African-American centenarians, so there is no reason to depopulate it.
In my discussions with @Newshunter12, they expressed similar views, and I made the same response: legitimate view, but needs a CFD to achieve consensus. However, the primitive category software makes constructing a big group CFD nomination a daunting task. I don't like that: technical barriers should not be an impediment to consensus-building. If you have a case to make, it should be discussed.
So I have offered at User talk:Newshunter12#Age-related_categories_in_general to construct a large group CFD nomination of longevity categories on the basis of whatever rationale the nominator wishes to make. That offer is open to you too: if you want to propose the deletion of all centenarian categories, I will help you to do so. I probably will not support the proposal, but I will help you to make the proposal.
Meanwhile, no such proposal has been made at CFD, let alone agreed up on. So please don't pre-empt the outcome of such a discussion by disrupting categories which have not even been nominated for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category - if someone wants to recategorize great. Have at it. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2019 (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:Video games by island country of setting

[edit]
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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that we have Category:Video games by country of setting, this is a non-defining characteristic for the categories it contains. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2019 (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.

Peerages with only two holders

[edit]
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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Follows on from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 11#Peerage titles with only one holder. Opera hat (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally but with some alternative outcomes -- This is not quite like the one-member categories, as we do not have an article on the peerage, only a bio of the one holder. All those I sampled were 2-member categories. We certainly do not need categories for each creation of a title. I have often needed to look for a person by his title. By far the best way of finding them is by going to the article on the title, and then clicking on the article in the list section of it. In the case of Edinburgh and Gloucester, I would prefer to merge to the two separate titles. For Yarmouth, I would prefer a rename to Category:Earls of Yarmouth, adding the 2nd creation (a countess) and the third creation, as a subsidiary title for the Marquess of Hertford, adding the peerage article to the category (not the sons who used it as a courtesy title. Similarly Warrington should be renamed to drop the date and have Earl of Stamford added. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So just to clarify, you'd prefer to merge
I don't have a problem with any of that. Opera hat (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:SMALLCAT says 'Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, *unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country*.'

2. There are 5 'national' peerages in the British Isles peerage system - those of England, Scotland, Ireland, GB and the UK. Each of those has 5 levels - duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. So there are 25 categories. I suggest that whatever system is worked out needs to be consistent across those 25 categories.

3. The biggest of the 25 seems to be 'Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom' with 11 subcats and 1335 entries. I suggest that this category is a candidate for diffusion, and that it illustrates 'the merits of categories like Category:Earls of Leicester', to quote a phrase used in the 2016 discussion.

4. There are many cases of successive creations of an earldom with the same name - e.g. Earl of Yarmouth is a title that has been created three times in British history, once in the Peerage of England and twice in the Peerage of Great Britain. IOW not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of E and not all Earls of Y were Earls in the Peerage of GB - so I suggest that it is incorrect that Category:Earls of Yarmouth is a subcat of 'Earls in the Peerage of E' and 'Earls in the Peerage of GB'. Contrast Category:Earls of Leicester which (I suggest correctly) is not a subcat of any of the 'Earls in the Peerage of X' categories, because it has been created in each of the Peerages of E, GB and the UK. If Category:Earls of X (date) were simply merged to Category:Earls of X, then we would lose the categorisation of the members of the merged category into the various Peerages. I suggest that having Category:Earls of Yarmouth (1679) (which is a subcat of both Earls in the Peerage of England and Earls of Yarmouth) allows the reader to see at a glance (a) which individuals held peerages under which creation and (b) which were in e.g. the Peerage of England or the Peerage of GB.

5. As things stand, there are categories for peerages with two holders, but not for those with one holder. If this proposal is adopted, there will be categories for peerages with three holders but not for those with two holders. I feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The logic of the status quo is that [the article for the one holder] can be categorised in whatever way [the category with one article] would be categorised if it existed.

Alekksandr (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (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:Hebbar Iyengars

[edit]
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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by caste. See User:Sitush/Common#Castecats for some background on this. Sitush (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2019 (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:Revival movements

[edit]
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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has now become ill- and broadly-defined. It has a parent category of Category:Christian movements but then includes articles like Greek Revival architecture and LaRouche movement which are clearly not Christian movements. If anything that considers itself a "revival" or anyone who calls themselves a "revivalist" can be included, this category is so broad to be not very defining. As an alternative to being deleted, perhaps this category can just be pruned to only contain articles and categories that pertain to Christian revival movements but I wanted to get some feedback from the CfD crowd before undoing another editor's edits and purging this category. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 4 February 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_4&oldid=1167306142"