Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11
September 13 >

September 12[edit]

Category:Songs covered by Greta Van Fleet[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining aspect of the songs in this category and not an established category scheme. If any of the songs have achieved any notability for the versions by this group, they can be merged into Category:Greta Van Fleet songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable. Mason (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete as non-defining. Two of the three songs in there only have a single unsourced sentence on their cover anyway, and the third does not appear to be notable enough to justify as much coverage as it has. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:42, 13 September 2023 (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:Divided regions[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR. Main article was deleted in 2021 per WP:OR, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divided region. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TLDR re my above comment: calling every former territory or subdivision that was subsequently reshaped a divided region is just too indiscriminate. Hence WP:BLOWITUP. Place Clichy (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (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:IMAX venues in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Category:IMAX venues in the United States

Category:Gangsters killed during the Castellammarese War[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 19:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's nondefining, but I suggest we upmerge in case anyone's been diffused from the parent category Category:Murdered American gangsters of Italian descent Mason (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2023 (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:Political music albums[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The implication of this category tree's existence is that political music is a genre in some sense, or at least something equivalent to it. The problem is that that link redirects to music and politics, a page which only uses the former phrase three times and in the first instance says the "nature of that message can also be ambiguous". It goes on to explain the ambiguity, but never comes up with a definition anywhere close to a music genre/equivalent. Can we call something a defining characteristic of any subject when the characteristic itself is so loosely defined? We certainly couldn't make an article for political music without a stricter definition, and my understanding is we wouldn't have categories for characteristics that don't have articles explaining them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 12 September 2023 (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:International Socialist Organisations[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary capitalization of common nouns. –Vipz (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Could be speedied under c2a. Mason (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2023 (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:Slaves[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a slave is neither a natural condition nor a choice. It is less demeaning to refer to someone as having been enslaved (something that was done to them), than as being a slave.

Applies to all child categories, similarly named. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but you need to tag and list every category to which you want this to apply.--User:Namiba 19:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I also think its worth considering how to parent enslaved people, because some categories include "slaves" as an occupation (as in Fooian people by occupation , whereas others put it as a status: Fooian people by status. Mason (talk) Mason (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use the {{subst:Cfr|PROPOSED PAGE RENAME|Category:Slaves}} to tag the other categories Mason (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unnecessary verbose, per List of slaves, per WP:COMMONNAME, so three different reasons to oppose. Agree that being a slave is neither a natural condition nor a choice, but presumably Wikipedia readers already know that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unnecessarily verbose. Nom's rationale ("neither a natural condition nor a choice") is not convincing. It is a condition, and defining, too. Also, children of slaves are not "enslaved" (i.e., not turned from non-slaves into slaves), they are born as slaves, i.e., that was their "natural" condition, especially in ancient times. - Altenmann >talk 06:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being forced into slavery from birth does not make slavery a "natural" condition. Funcrunch (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Altenmann. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Enslaved is increasingly becoming the norm now for many people and organizations looking at the history of slavery. See The Underground Railroad Education Center, the The US National Park Service, and the US national archives.--User:Namiba 18:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited National Archives webpage (which is clearly the most authoritative of the three) says Do not remove all uses of slave; the term should be retained when used as a modifier related to economic systems. Clearly in the United States there was an economic system of slavery. And the term "slave" refers to the category of people within this system. - Altenmann >talk 20:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your quoting is highly selective; and the extract you quote is preceded by "Enslaved person is the preferred term for an individual. Enslaved persons and enslaved people are preferred terms to refer to groups of people. Enslaved can be used as a modifier instead of slave before a person’s name, role, or profession, or the modifier slave can be removed and not replaced in that instance, especially if the description elsewhere provides context related to enslaved people or slavery..." It most certainly does not advocate using the word "slave" to refer to the category of people within the former US system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enslaved is also used at UK national archives, see [1]" UNESCO also uses enslaved to discuss individuals. [2].--User:Namiba 16:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary PC. More specifically, using the word slave[s] does not imply that Wikipedia maintains that such persons were/are not people, were so by choice or by a natural condition, or that there is in general anything good or positive about slavery. Suggesting otherwise is disruptive (see e.g. WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS). Place Clichy (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nomination. In response to the opposers, this proposal is simply to rename a category, not every mention of a person being referred to as a slave. I see no overreach or "WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS" issues here. Funcrunch (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as long as the mainspace article slavery refers to the people it applies to as slaves rather than enslaved people we should do the same in category namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (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:Philippine Heads of State and Government[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Heads of state of the Philippines and Category:Heads of government of the Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We used to have a hierarchy of Category:Rulers for heads of state and heads of government; although I thought that was useful, there was consensus to dismantle (most of) it. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 14 September 2023 (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:Mathematical prefixes[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 Category:Prefixes. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT; Category:Function_prefixes suffices. fgnievinski (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Prefixes in order to keep the subcategory in that tree. Note that the subcategory only contains redirects, it does not seem very helpful for navigation either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, the subcategory is very helpful to people using the category system to find related information, like all function prefixes used in math. If a category contains articles or redirects has no relevance at all, the only thing that counts is that the titles of category members belong into the category (which is the case here). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does have relevance because categories are a navigational tool. If there is no article from which you can navigate to the category page there is little use in having the category in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, categories are a navigational tool, but for this to work an article's title is irrelevant, the only thing that is actually relevant is the existence of contents. Articles often discuss many (related) topics, therefore we have redirects from the alternative titles of an article and all its subtopics to the location where the contents resides at present. It happens quite often that the title of an article would not semantically belong into a particular category, but its redirects do. We then include the redirects into the category rather than the article itself. The category system is not a grouped index of article titles but of (semantically) grouped keywords (represented by articles or redirects), which point to the corresponding contents. If someone wants to look up functional prefixes, he will travel down the Prefixes category and expect some kind of subcategory in there listing all function prefixes. He would be confused to find an article "cofunction" in that category because cofunctions is a much broader topic more about functions than about a particular prefix. That's why we have a redirect for the "co" prefix and only include this in the Function prefix category. Likewise, the "cofunction" article may be included in a Functions category, where it would be also okay to list a function like "cosine", but where an entry about the "co" prefix keyword itself would be off-topic. The contents of an article can often be semantically grouped or categorized in many different ways in parallel, that's why we can have redirects in categories and also have categories containing only redirects. Removing the category would make it much more difficult for someone to find the relevant information navigating the category system, let alone to look up other function prefixes as well. Not every subcategory must have a master article listed in its header.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Mathematical prefixes contains a single item, Category:Function prefixes. If I understand the proposal correctly, it is suggested to remove the "middleman" category and place Category:Function_prefixes directly into Category:Prefixes. If so, I agree with this course of action. - Altenmann >talk 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my intention, as OP. fgnievinski (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2023 (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.

The Two Sicilies[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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT & WP:NATURALNESS. The words of the Kingdom are redundant; there has only ever been 1 state in history called "the Two Sicilies" and that is the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The main article is rightly called that way, but the category tree is inconsistent and often uses the words of the Kingdom in a very redundant manner as if there were other "Two Sicilies". It is common practice to leave the words of the Kingdom out, also in the articles themselves: Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies, not Ferdinand I of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. (Needlessly long; we know we're not talking about Ferdinand I of the County/Duchy/Principality/Empire/Emirate/Sultanate/Caliphate etc. of the Two Sicilies; we aren't silly about the Two Sicilies as such only ever having been a kingdom.) Therefore, I propose a clear rule of thumb based on established practice (citing real and imagined examples to make the point):
  1. Fooers of the Two Sicilies when grouping royals and people by occupation in direct service to the state: Category:Princes of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Category:Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Category:Monarchs of the Two Sicilies, Category:Queens consort of the Two Sicilies, Category:Dukes in the Two Sicilies (see parent Category:Dukes in Italy), Category:Prime ministers of the Two Sicilies, Category:Politicians of the Two Sicilies, Category:Naval officers of the Two Sicilies‎, Category:Military personnel of the Two Sicilies‎, etc.
  2. Fooers from the Two Sicilies when grouping non-royals, such as emigrants or people by occupation not (necessarily) in direct service to the state. Category:Emigrants from the Two Sicilies, Category:Diplomats from the Two Sicilies etc. based on many precedents (such as the People from Fooland naming convention established by Category:People from the Russian Empire).
  3. Fooers to the Two Sicilies exclusively for ambassadors to, missionaries to, immigrants to, pretenders to the throne of etc. following those category trees' naming conventions. Category:Ambassadors to the Two Sicilies; Category:Pretenders to the throne of the Two Sicilies etc..
This should make this tree a lot easier and more consistent. Moved to full after speedy renaming of Category:Royal consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies ran into procedural problems. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. From my understanding there are really only two other uses for the term "Two Sicilies": a name collectively referring to the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples and to the general geographic region of Southern Italy. Of these three, clearly "List of X from the Two Sicilies" would really only refer to the unified Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Any lists referring to the separate Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily would be separate, and those for the modern day region would just use "Southern Italy". I see very little possible confusion there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion of Two sicilies versus kingdom of. But I would encourage someone to double check that the renamings for the categories template are accurate. I found several typos in the nomination. [3] [4]. I don't know how the bot works on these. Mason (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2023 (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:Thirteenth Tsardom[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: Moot Category was speedy deleted as a sock creation. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a result of a mistranslation by a person not fluent in Russian: Тридевятое царство literally means "Thrice-ninth Tsardom" and figiratively "Faraway Tsardom" (I already moved the article). - Altenmann >talk 00:35, 12 September 2023 (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:Indian journalists by language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 22#Category:Indian journalists by language

Category:Indian dramatists and playwrights by language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 22#Category:Indian dramatists and playwrights by language

Category:Television series written by Umera Ahmad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 22#Category:Television series written by Umera Ahmad

Category:Quotients[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 22#Category:Quotients

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_12&oldid=1176761054"