Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Category:Documentary films about electric cars[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: Upmerge Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT WP:NARROWCAT --Vossanova o< 21:31, 25 February 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:Wikipedia community sites[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) 22:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The criteria for inclusion are non-defining, based on "prominence" and "frequency". From category page: This category is for pages that are highlighted most prominently to the general wikipedia community. And from talk page: This category is for specifically the resources and pages that are highlighted most frequently to the general wikipedia community .... All current content of the category is already in the trees of either Category:Wikipedia discussion and Category:Wikipedia help. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because this makes a mess of the categorization (e.g. forming a category loop with Category:Wikipedia discussion). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category is intended to be smaller in scope, and to be a repository for the Wikipedia sites that are the most important and useful as central resources for Wikipedia users. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sm8900: how would one assess the importance and usefulness of a page to decide if it needs to be included in this category? Such a criteria is likely to cause edit wars, because both importance and usefulness are highly subjective qualities. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Andrybak:, I understand your point, but you can assess that simply based on the fact that the category has been very stable, and no edit wars have occurred. Until now, there was no category that grouped all of these central resources together. Many Wikipedia-space category evolve and develop over time, simply based on common usage. We do have categories of varying or subjective scope already in this namespace; some examples are e.g. Category: Wikipedia basic information, or Category: Wikipedia quick introductions, etc. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edit wars is a bad argument. It was an unnecessary exaggeration. Sorry about that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • no problem!! I truly appreciate the collegial, helpful, and forthright tone of your comment above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the sort of cat/page that seems likely to be administered by the wiki-contributor setting it up, and in that sense it demonstrates for the 94 millionth time that (1) we all like to sort and classify stuff according to the patterns of our own minds and (2) the patterns of our own minds are are different. That's one of a number of reasons why I tend to avoid discussions about keeping/depeting/merging categories and, indeed, very rarely create categories even where they appear (to me) to be desperately needed. But having broken that habit as an alternative to stopping for coffee, I say (write) that if Sm8900 is content to do the necessary (most likely minimal) admin, this cat does no harm and may, from time to time, be helful to him/her and to other folks. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN. We only have one category system and if it tried to cover every editor's "pattern of mind" it'd be a right mess (e.g. taking more effort to administer and being less easy to use). DexDor (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. perhaps we do have one category system, but one way that it has evolved and grown is to encompass different approaches and options as referred to above. how do we have categoreies like Category: Wikipedia basic information, or Category: Wikipedia quick introductions, if not to accommodate and include differing approaches for similar topics?? --Sm8900 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. After this many years of development we are at a stage where new approaches to categorization that are implemented by one editor without any prior discussion with other editors and without careful design (as evidenced by the category loop you created) are generally adding complexity to the categorization scheme rather than making it more useable. DexDor (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay, but may I also point out, our category system happens to include these categories, as well:
See also the categories Wikipedia basic information, Wikipedia help, Wikipedia editing aids, Wikipedia lists, Wikipedia essays about lists, and Wikipedia dos and don'ts
.so it seems to me like our category system already encompasses a variety of differing approaches, to similar or overlapping topics. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my response at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_25#Category:Wikipedia_help_overviews. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know what a 'community site' is, but I know that this isn't a term used by anyone and there is no rhyme or reason to an inclusion criteria that would regroup the Teahouse with Consensus, The Signpost, and VPI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an idiosyncratic creation. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 18 March 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:New Zealand aviation record 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: speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 00:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Withdrawn. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Every other member of Category:Aviation record holders by nationality uses nationality, not nation, in its name. This is not a matter of "grammar" as the mover to the current title asserted; it's a matter of consistency, and people from New Zealand are universally known as New Zealanders. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:41, 25 February 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:French-language writers[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: Rescope, adding subcat, removing note and adding {{category diffuse}}. CFD precedents for this include 2012 Aug 23 for Category:English-language songs, closed as "keep as container… [like] Category:English-language singers", and 2017 Sep 13 which deleted English-language albums. Both were closed despite WP:INVOLVED, the first one by me but against my own !vote. In that close I gave weight to Richhoncho's comment that Category:English-language singers, which is specifically for non-native English speakers would be good place to look for a good example of WP:COMMONSENSE, and modelled the close on that category. In other words, I added see-also links to the nationality categories where the language is a primary language (exact criteria were not specified), rather than a parent–subcat link.[1] However, Category:English-language novels was also mentioned as another model for consideration: it holds, for example, Category:Indian English-language novels alongside Category:Irish novels, and it seems to work just fine. That is the approach with most support in this discussion. I will start a fresh discussion to reconsider the English-language works hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am raising this for discussion due to a conflict between the category's stated intentions and its actual contents: the category page explicitly contains a usage note which reads "Since the vast majority of French authors write in the French language, they should not be placed here. Only authors of nationalities other than French should be placed in this category", but in actual practice the category does contain a considerable (but far from comprehensive) number of authors from France. Accordingly, we need to discuss what should be done: do we want to maintain that restriction and purge the category of French writers, or do we want to erase the usage note and permit it to include French writers on the grounds that we want it to be a completist category for all French language writers regardless of nationality? And if consensus favours the latter, then do we want to directly add this category to all français de France writers, even though that would make the category unbrowsably large and almost impossible to maintain, or do we want to add Category:French writers as a subcategory of this and then purge the French writers from here anyway on duplicate categorization grounds, even though that would result in the occasional mislabelling of a few French writers who don't write in the French language and would still require regular maintenance for erroneous duplicate categorization? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Category:French writers as a subcategory as the most practical solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the "Since... Only..." paragraph as that was added (in 2011) without any explanation (e.g. referring to a CFD discussion) and is inconsistent with sibling categories. If we are to have a category for non-French French language writers then that should be clear in the category name. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, in fact I meant both in my previous comment: adding the subcategory and removing this paragraph complement each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend headnote to include native French writers, which the actual contents actually seem to include. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly similar issues arise with respect to English language. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the language of an author is notable; I would not add Category:French writers as a subcategory as suggested above, because some French writers were not notable for writing in French (e.g., perhaps in German, Latin, Breton, Occitan, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this note may be linked to the (sometimes deemed unfortunate) habit in the French/French-speaking publishing sphere to use the label of écrivain francophone (French-language writer) in the strict sense of non-French nationals writing in French, especially for writers from former colonial countries. Anyway, it is certainly not defining for a French writer to be writing in French. Imho the best course here is indeed to Add Category:French writers as a subcategory and remove the note, per Marcocapelle. Existing WP guidelines such as WP:SUBCAT and common sense should be sufficient to keep these categories useful, with French French-language writers placed in the category, but not at its root. The hypothetical French writers that would never have written anything in French do not seem to be an issue, as e.g. most regional writers could reasonably be expected to have written during their lifetime both in French and the other language, with eventual exceptions a non-issue. I would not say that the situation is identical with other languages, as for instance I do not think that the UK, Portugal or Spain have the same kind of cultural dominance on the English-, Portuguese- or Spanish-speaking worlds that France does, and other large language areas such as the Arabic-, Chinese- or Russian-speaking worlds are not really comparable. Place Clichy (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove description only. I agree that the unilaterally added description should be removed from the category and Category:French-language writers should encompass all writers of the language. However, I have reservations regarding the addition of Category:French writers as a subcategory because of the implications this decision would have on the Category:Writers by language tree, particularly on Category:English-language writers. This description is included there as well and it more far-reaching than the nominated category, so none of the writers from those countries are, if the description holds true, categorized by language. I find it odd that writers from South Africa, with its 11 official languages, are barred from Category:English-language writers, but a country with two official languages like the Philippines is not (see Category:English-language writers from the Philippines).
Honestly, I've always hated these language categories because a single user decided to impose a rule not only to this category tree, but to others occupation categories like Category:Singers by language and categories about works like Category:Albums by language. The influence was so much so, it led to the deletion of Category:English-language albums and its subcategories at its CFD, which was closed by an involved user – yet we still have Category:English-language works, including cousin Category:English-language songs. So my question is: how impactful would this closure be to category trees across the entire project? @Bearcat, Marcocapelle, DexDor, Peterkingiron, Rathfelder, Carlossuarez46, and Place Clichy: Thoughts? ƏXPLICIT 12:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar problems arise all over the place. My own view is that these categories should be reserved for people using a language different from that expected from their nationality or location, but I can see the problems that arise. Could we approach it differently? Could English writers be redefined as English writers writing in English? Irish writers could be divided between those writing in English and those writing in Gaelic. What I dont like is some French writers being put in a category of people writing in French and others, who also wrote in French, not being included for no reason. Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how this discussion would have impact on English. We do not need a category tree for English-language writers (or albums or anything) because it is by far the most used language by all writers (or musicians or anything) about whom we have articles in en.wp and the spread of the English language goes far beyond just English, American, Australian and Canadian writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 22 March 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:Musician-politicians[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. MER-C 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization for a non-defining intersection of unrelated occupations. While we do have a couple of specific "occupation-politician" categories that have been permitted (actors, astronauts, diplomats and sportspeople) on the grounds that consensus deemed that combination (sometimes wrongly!) to be more notable than the norm, we also have an established consensus that we do not want a comprehensive scheme of intersecting "politician" with every occupation that two or more politicians might have held before getting into politics. To justify these, what would need to be shown is reliably sourced evidence that there's something significant and encyclopedically defining about the fact of having been a musician before or after being a politician -- such as evidence that musicians do the politician job in a different way than non-musicians do, or evidence that musicians have had a meaningfully defining impact on politics as a group -- but that hasn't been shown here at all. So to all available evidence, this is just "people who happen to have been both X and Y", with no evidence that X and Y have a meaningful relationship with each other, and we do not categorize people on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Any "People who have been both X and Y" categories should only be for people who have been notable for both things (per WP:COP#N) - e.g. Jon Fishman probably shouldn't be categorized as a musician-politician. DexDor (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that these are interesting categories, particularly in that they shed light on some of the intersection between celebrity (i.e., from the entertainment business) and elected political office. However, I will go with the judgment of the group. KConWiki (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Musician-politician and Singer-politician are redlinks. I'm hoping that in the long term category intersection and/or WikiData will provide a better way to find people with combinations of characteristics. DexDor (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a trivial intersection: most of us sing, though perhaps not well. Some occupational intersections are interesting, because they are likely to indicate the area of politics in which the person takes an interest. If kept, please as the Polish president Ignacy Jan Paderewski. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial intersection. Place Clichy (talk) 11:36, 5 March 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:Books about mental health[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure about this rename, but I wanted to raise a discussion about this category, because it seems to me that a rename would better fit the current articles collected in this category. We would probably need to reconsider subcategories as well. Daask (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the first article in the category is about psychiatry, the second is an autobiography, i.e. neither of the two is about sociology. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 25 February 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:Hard drugs[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) 23:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The similar Category:Illegal drugs was deleted by CfD in 2013 as legality varies between countries, and hard/soft is a subjective distinction that doesn't make for a good categorisation. Also there's no corresponding articles, just a section in Drug harmfulness. Le Deluge (talk) 14:28, 25 February 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:6 Hours of Circuit of the Americas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 14#Category:6 Hours of Circuit of the Americas

Category:Rubiaceae taxonomic synonyms[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. MER-C 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no "taxonomic synonyms" categories for other plants. It is unclear what this category is for (as we categorize articles by characteristics of the subject, not by characteristics of the subject's name). Note: All the articles in the category are in Category:Historically recognized Rubiaceae genera. DexDor (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category name is not consistent with similar categories (which are titled "historically recognized" for plants, and "obsolete" for animals and fungi). Note that families names are always capitalized; the other category should be "Historically recognized Rubiaceae genera". (@DexDor:, Category:Disused trilobite generic names also doesn't conform to the "historically recognized"/"obsolete" standard). Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other category has now been renamed. DexDor (talk) 06:48, 28 February 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:Ambassadors of the Maldives[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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of the Maldives to Malaysia should be changed to Category:High Commissioners of the Maldives to Malaysia, as the Maldives returned to being a Commonwealth republic on 1 February 2020. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose as there are articles such as List of ambassadors of the Maldives to Malaysia. DexDor (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Struck. DexDor (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nomionator did not place cfr template on the category page. I've just added it. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I have just added a sentence about status to the Ambassador list, whose name need to be changed to match this one. The office holder would only have been an ambassador Oct 2016 to 1 Feb 2020. I would not recommend having two articles, but a cat-redirect should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 1 March 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_February_25&oldid=1073192501"