Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 4

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

April 4[edit]

Indigenous in Canada[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. bibliomaniac15 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "indigenous" is not used as a proper noun here. The last category was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • @Black Falcon and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and thank you both for pinging me (here and at /Speedy). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Indigenous peoples have an official status and definition in Canada, and as a group they are often capitalized (see Indigenous peoples in Canada, The Canadian Crown and Indigenous peoples of Canada). At least we have here a consistent definition for "indigenous" and not a vague notion given accross the board to Basques, Bretons or People of Sami descent. Place Clichy (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question @Place Clichy: Within both of those articles you mentioned, "indigenous" is pretty much always with a lower case "i" after the intro section in both articles. What's the custom/rule for when you capitalize/don't capitalize it in a Canadian context? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When speaking about peoples or individuals who are indigenous in the general sense, no need to capitalize. When speaking about the Indigenous peoples of Canada as a specific predefined group, I would be capitalized. That's the way I would understand it. Place Clichy (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a group for constitutional purposes. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the rights of "aboriginal peoples", which is defined to include "Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples". In the 38 years since the Act came into force, "Indian" has been gradually replaced by "First Nation" and "aboriginal" by "Indigenous" (as a matter of style and usage in both cases), but in Canadian law, "Indigenous peoples" is a recognised category, which includes the three different groups of "Indigenous peoples." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Catgory:Indigenous military personnel from Canada? It's a bit tighter, and complies with the style guide from the federal government, para. 14.12, cited below.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete improper triple intersection of "ingenuousness", "military service", for "Canada". What makes this triple intersection a notable one; what article has been written about this? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please click on the existing category to see several examples. The reason this particular category is notable in Canada is that it highlights an issue, namely that some Indigenous people and organisations take the position that they are not Canadians, because they have retained their pre-contact sovereignty, but other Indigenous individuals are willing to join the Canadian Armed Forces, which might be seen as a recognition of Canadian sovereignty, or possibly a recognition of dual sovereignty and dual identity. In short, this category is connected to some pretty complicated issues of sovereignty and identity, and should be kept. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)}
  • Comment, I've left a note at Wikiproject Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indigenous as a people is capitalized, just like French, German or Amish. "A creature is indigenous to this land", is not capitalized. "X is a member of the Indigenous people of Canada" is capitalized. Indigenous as a people is considered a proper noun, indigenous as in native to an area is not. Canterbury Tail talk 00:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canadian style is to capitalise "Indigenous" as both noun and adjective when referring to the Indigenous peoples of Canada. See the style guide of the Federal government, which has constitutional responsibility for relations with Indigenous peoples:
4.11 Races, languages and peoples
...
Capitalize the singular and plural forms of the nouns Status Indian, Registered Indian, Non-Status Indian and Treaty Indian, as well as the adjectives Indigenous and Aboriginal, when they refer to Indigenous people in Canada.
14.12 Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Stereotyping, Identification of groups
Be aware of the current self-identification preferences of racial and cultural groups in Canada:
...
  • Indigenous people(s) in Canada, not Indigenous Canadians
Note also that the terms used to designate the Indigenous peoples of Canada have undergone considerable change in recent years. Although the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, uses the term aboriginal peoples in the lower case, the words Aboriginal and Indigenous have since come to be capitalized when used in the Canadian context. The terms currently preferred are the following:
  • Indigenous people(s)
  • First people(s)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. "Indigenous" is clearly being used as a proper noun here, referring to peoples that are indigenous to Canada specifically (ie: to the exclusion of other indigenous peoples that are not from Canada, like Maori or Maya). — Kawnhr (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usually, the first letter of the names of ethnic groups starts with capital letters. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2020 (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:Mathematics paradoxes[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Style. Also unification with Category:Physical paradoxes and Category:Statistical paradoxes‎. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, maybe I am making things too difficult, so let it be clear that I am not voting for or against anything. I had in mind there would be a difference between an academic field and the subject of that academic field. E.g. Category:Economics paradoxes would contain paradoxes in economic theory, such as Bertrand paradox (economics), versus Category:Economic problems which are real life problems which are analyzed in economics. But admittedly, Category:Economics paradoxes contains both theoretical paradoxes ("economics paradoxes") and real life paradoxes ("economic paradoxes") and I do not think that we need to split these paradoxes categories. On top of that, my knowledge of mathematics (which this nomination is about) is not of the same level as of economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The proposed new name sounds more idiomatic to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2020 (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:Nicktoonists[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neologism title; also unnecessary to further subcategorize from its parent Category:Nickelodeon people. Trivialist (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2020 (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:Burgundian kings[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 21:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Kingdom of the Burgundians and List of Kings of Burgundy#Kings of the Burgundians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2020 (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:British laws[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: rename to Category:Laws in the United Kingdom. bibliomaniac15 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with Law of the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2020 (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.

x-century media[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: rename to Category:16th century in mass media, etc. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Both decades in media and years in media use the style of "x in media". For example Category:1880s in media and Category:1880 in media. See full lists in Category:Media by decade and Category:Media by year. These 7 are the only ones not WP:CONSISTENT with the rest of the set. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to 16th century in media, etc. No need for a hyphen in this form. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with this if that is the correct way. --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:16th century in media, etc, per Dimadick. None of the articles or categories in Category:Centuries use the hyphen. Oculi (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think an editor has pointed out before that it should be hyphenated if it's an adjective (compound adjective?) - eg African-American. So hyphenated is correct for the present categories and unhyphenated correct for the targets. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Updated nom and removed hyphen per above comments. --Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This proposal changes the scope. I chased the tree down through a lot of layers for the 16th century to a magazine established in 1592 and publishing houses established in that century. The target scope would include media about the 16th century, which is quite different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you point out below the subcats already contain sub-subcats (such as Category:1870s in media) with this different scope. There are plenty of categories which contain subcats of different scope. Oculi (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Matches established naming convention RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Gonnym: I suggest 21st and 22nd century in media rather than 21th and 22th. TSventon (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Missed that, and fixed! --Gonnym (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT Rename to Category:16th century in mass media etc, per parent Category:Mass media by century. 94.178.234.44 (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename immediately Dima's right. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT rename, this is a matter of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2020 (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:Family of Augustus[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. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: move subcategories to Category:Augustus, then delete. There are no clear boundaries as to what constitutes Augustus' family and what not. Augustus' mother, half-sister, aunt and cousin are in this category, and ultimately we might add everyone of the Julio-Claudian dynasty to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oposse Not helpful, keeping the child and wife categories contained in this one is beneficial and reduces clutter in Augustus main category. Also claiming that we "might as well add everyone in the Category:Julio-Claudian dynasty" is pure nonsense since it includes relatives that didn't even exist during his own lifetime, and immediate family like his mothers and fathers in laws are not part of the dynasty and don't belong in that category only this one.★Trekker (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oposse A family does not extend to a dynasty with many generations. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oppose votes ignore the question at stake. Is this about the household members, about immediate family, about any distant relatives no matter how far? If we extend this too widely (e.g. including grandparents and grandchildren), it is going to cause an enormous category clutter in the articles, while having the articles in Category:Julio-Claudian dynasty may well suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I suggest we define what is his "family". So then people will know whether someone should be included in this category or not. His parents, wives, and children should be in there, but should it extend to grandparents/children, cousins, in-laws, etc.? T8612 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Family is too vague and it cannot be decided where to stop. Category:Julio-Claudian dynasty should be sufficient for members of the dynasty, whether they were Augustus' contemporaries or not. Place Clichy (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now If there was a Family of Augustus main article created to establish inclusion criteria, I would be opening to recreating this category at that time. But applying our modern view of "family" to this Roman emperor is too subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2020 (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:Media by decade[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. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both Category:Mass media by century and Category:Media by year have one category for years and topics. I personally also don't understand the distinction of the scopes of "Mass media by decade" and "Media by decade". Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We have Category:Mass media but not Category:Media. I am supposing there was a rename at the top level which has not yet filtered down. Oculi (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, the reason that I named this by "Category:Media by decade" is because each of the content categories is named that way; e.g. Category:1850s in media, Category:1870s in media, etc. so I yield to whatever the community consensus may be. however, if we rename this parent category, then should we rename each of the individual decade categories that it contains? --Sm8900 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The content of this tree is a mess. It is mixing up media set in 1874 with media (and publishing companies) established in 18xx. These are different things. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eg Category:1878 in film? I don't see anything wrong with having the 'different things' in different subcats. Each subcat is itself in other appropriate trees. Oculi (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establishment subcategories are always a bit odd, because they usually contain articles about things that are not notable yet at the time of establishment. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2020 (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:Recipients of the Honorary Award of the President of Ukraine[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. However, following the text of the Order of Merit article, I have added Boiko into Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine). – Fayenatic London 10:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
We have a brief description of this short lived award at Order of Merit (Ukraine)#The Honorary Award of the President of Ukraine but it gives no hint of why this award was issued. The only thing we have in this category is Vitaliy Boiko whose article doesn't even mention this award. I can't definitively say that this award is non-defining but there is nothing in English Wikipedia that even hints that it might be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (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:Recipients of the Air Gallantry Cross[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. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
The Air Gallantry Cross was issued by South Vietnam and may have been defining for Vietnamese military pilots who received it but sources don't seem to be available, at least online in English, for those Vietnamese recipients. According to the main article, "pilots of the United States Air Force were often awarded the Air Gallantry Cross" as a de facto campaign medal. Those American articles are all we have in this category and are already well categorized under Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War and I listified the contents of the category here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I thought that we did normally allow gallantry awards. As I read the article, these are not mere campaign medals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of of this award was for gallantry for Vietnamese pilots and I suspect it is likely defining for those anonymous people, none of which are in this category. My suspicion is that the South Vietnamese award information was either destroyed or intentionally not shared by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam given how little information there is on many of them, but that's my own speculation. (In general, there are a lot of secondary and tertiary gallantry awards I would not find defining as well as countless awards that were intended to be gallantry awards but were handed out like candy in practice.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gallantry medal, whoever it's awarded to. Awarded for achievement. Not just awarded for serving in a campaign or being unfortunate enough to be wounded. We keep categories for such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the articles mention a specific achievement related to this medal. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how that's relevant. Most of our many thousands of articles on people with gallantry awards do not specify exactly why they got it; only that they did, because the actual full citations are often hard to come by. Nor do I see why a category for recipients of a perfectly legitimate gallantry medal should be deleted because its only occupants thus far are foreigners. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are supposed to capture defining characteristics. If it's not even known what the medal is for, how can it be defining? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, are you actually advocating deletion of gallantry medal categories on every article that doesn't include the actual citation? That, if I may say so, is one of the most ludicrous comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Of course gallantry medals are defining. In Britain and the Commonwealth we even put their initials after people's names for the rest of their lives. If that's not defining I don't know what is. Yet, the actual citation is very rarely available as it is rarely included in, say, the London Gazette, although the announcement of the award is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently Britain and the Commonwealth are an exception in the world, but this is a Vietnamese medal and the category contains Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Many people have received gallantry decorations from foreign countries. It doesn't make them any less valid. And now you seem to be saying that gallantry medals aren't defining outside the Commonwealth. Of course they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with many state medals is that the stated purpose often doesn't match how the medal is issued in practice. To me, that means you need to go through the biography articles to get a clearer sense of how defining a medal is rather than relying exclusively on the title/contents of the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2020 (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/2020_April_4&oldid=952908910"