Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12
September 14 >

September 13

[edit]

LGBT articles

[edit]
Further nominations
Nominator's rationale: This is batch number 2 (following batch 1) of a bunch of category renames following Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024, which moved LGBT to LGBTQ. Because similar moves were opposed at CFD, these are being nominated here versus CFDS. However, the rationale is still the same: rename per WP:C2D and WP:CONSUB.

I would ask that we not try to delete/merge/etc. any of these categories. That can be the subject of a further nomination. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Some of the pages in these categories have already been updated, so consistency is better as per WP:CONSUB. Lewisguile (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender and medicine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Transgender is an adjective, does not make grammatical sense. Ranleo09 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender in Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category is the same as Category:Russian transgender people. Transgender is also an adjective, not a noun. Transgender what in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranleo09 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People of Middle Eastern descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 27#Category:Middle Eastern diaspora. I have already manually merged and redirected many Middle Eastern descent categories into West Asian descent categories. Only now have I realized that their history may also need to be merged. Below is the list --Sakakami (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all – the term “Middle Eastern” even if not necessarily geographically correct; is a lot more widely used than “West Asian”, therefore, I oppose the renames. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manually merged
  • Comment – I understand the rationale, but I find this proposal and the previous ones that went through with very little discussion quite odd. "Middle Eastern" is a far more common term than "West Asian". Is there a reason we need to go that way instead of the reverse? If there are countries in West Asia that don't fit into the Middle East, is it necessary to group every country into a region for ancestry? Mclay1 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclay1 – We have categories for Category:People of Central Asian descent, Category:People of East Asian descent, Category:People of South Asian descent and Category:People of Southeast Asian descent. While both Middle East and West Asia are somewhat imprecise, West Asia aligns better with the existing geographic categorization. Middle East is a political term that has changed frequently depending on political and historical contexts, whereas 'West Asia' is a more consistent geographical term. It excludes most of Egypt and the northwestern part of Turkey, while including the southern part of the Caucasus. Additionally, 'West Asia' is arguably a more neutral term; for example, see the WANA Institute in Jordan. Sakakami (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those other Asian regions are common terms, whereas "West Asia" is basically a term created to fill the gap and replace the Middle East for the reasons you mentioned. While that might make sense for geography, I'm not sure it makes sense for ancestry. I doubt many people would consider themselves to be "West Asian" as opposed to Middle Eastern. It feels like we're inventing our own classification system just for the sake of having neat subcategories rather than reflecting outside usage. Mclay1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. And "Middle East", as a term, doesn't necessarily imply the subject is located in Asia, whereas "West Asia" mandates it. As such, "West Asia" would exclude Egypt (Africa) and parts of Turkey (Europe), whereas "Middle East" wouldn't. While there are some places in "West Asia" that aren't in the Middle East, I think the latter category is more elastic by definition, whereas West Asia will always be only in Asia. But I could live with "ME & WA" as a category, or even "NA, ME & WA", but at that point, does it become the "Greater Middle East"? Lewisguile (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on merge direction would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the entire category tree Most people wouldn't consider themselves "West Asian" or "middle Eastern" but Arab, Assyrian, Lebanese, etc. Also delete the other Asia region descent categories for the same reason. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support Delete the entire category tree as well per WP:NONDEF. --Sakakami (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, including the untagged categories in the list above that were manually moved or merged out-of-process. Middle Eastern is the commonly-used term for the ethnicity, as evidenced by the recently-adopted U.S. federal government standards, which added "Middle Eastern or North African" as a race and ethnicity category. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a single ethnicity, but rather a category encompassing people descended from West Asian (also known as Middle Eastern) countries. --Sakakami (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose merge. I appreciate the good intentions behind the proposal, but the Middle East is a different category than West Asia. It may include nationalities that are otherwise European or African, depending on whether one uses a broad or narrow definition of each. If someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, would we exclude them from the category? It doesn't make sense to me. It seems like an attempt for symmetry regardless of how these categories work in reality.
    That said, I could probably support a combined "Middle East and West Asia" category, but that may be a mouthful. At least no one is left out that way, though. Lewisguile (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lewisguile: if someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, -> can you give some example articles where this applies? Because I don't have a clue yet how it would work. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I was thinking specifically of Egyptians in a list like "People of West Asian descent"—they aren't in West Asia, but are generally considered to be in the Middle East. And vice versa, someone in the South Caucasus might see themselves as West Asian but not Middle Eastern, so they couldn't go in a singular "People of Middle Eastern descent" article. (The former example seems more obviously wrong, though.)
      So replacing one category with the other means those people don't fit the new list so get left off, or we have to shoehorn them into categories where they don't fit. It's not like Egyptians are particularly rare, at any rate.
      The more I think about it, the more I think "Middle East and West Asia" is better than having one category subsume the other, though having two categories still seems the best to me. Lewisguile (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Readers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one actual page in here. The other is a re-direct. The name is extremely vague. Mason (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to favor a change, but what exactly that change should be needs further discussion. Should this category's contents be merged elsewhere, or should the category be deleted? Should a redirect be kept, should it become a {{category disambiguation}}, or should it become a red link?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Lahoma, Oklahoma

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endemic Fauna of

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Current subcategories can be split even further with a subcategory Category:Endemic Moth Species of (insert country) as a majority of the species listed in these subcategories are moths and in the case of a few of them, even more categories . --YourAverageWeeb (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiplayer vehicle operation games

[edit]

Category:Vehicle simulation games with co-operative control

Nominator's rationale: current category name does not reflect actual category purpose at all; "multiplayer" can also mean the more general sense of any games with several players. it is vital to change the title, to show some indication of the actual category definition and scope, as being focused on vehicle games with cooperative control of the vehicle, by several players. Sm8900 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the scope - when you say it's a vehicle simulation game, that means it should be primarily that, not just arcade-style driving and shooting guns in co-op. Simulators tend to be about accuracy and comprehensiveness. For example, I wouldn't call the Battlefield series vehicle sims, and with the new name they should probably be excluded. But they fit into the current name. Solidest (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wikipedia now has a problem with this distinction. The vehicular combat game and racing game branches are currently referred to as a subtype of vehicle simulation game, although they are clearly not simulation as a whole - the article on racing explicitly states that there is an arcade-style racing genre and a sim racing genre, which is what real simulation is. And arcade-style games are themselves contradictory to the concept described in the simulation video game article. So perhaps this can be ignored here for now, and the problem needs to be addressed at a higher level. Solidest (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. in that case, how about " Vehicle cooperative-control operation games"? Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Control and operation in this context mean the same thing. I would go with Video games with co-operative vehicle control if you need to include split-screen games, or "Online video games" if not. Solidest (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest ok, but sorry, just to clarify, what is the full phrase for option 2, in your comment above? do you meant choice A or choice B below, as the second option?
  • Choice A for option 2: Online video games
  • Choice B for option 2: Online video games with co-operative vehicle control
thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant option B. Also given that we have Category:Multiplayer online games, the full variant should probably be "Multiplayer online games with co-operative vehicle control", but I'm not sure if we need to put "multiplayer" explicitly in the title in this case, since "co-op" probably implies it? So we can probably use the root "multiplayer online vgs", but not specify it in the title, staying with "Online video games with co-operative vehicle control". Solidest (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest ok, i appreciate your answer. I would like to go with "Video games with co-operative vehicle control." since those games will probably be added periodically, and I don't want to exclude them. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by the which ones had a split screen? you may have more knowledge than me, actually. do you mean Space Lords, for example? Sm8900 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civic nationalism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, it is not a defining characteristic of particular political parties. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete difficult to make a bright line distinction with other types of nationalism, so unsuitable for categorization. Most countries in practice are a mixture of both. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Topical postage stamps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge all; these categories have three or less items. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article title. This is not a case of speedy because the parent category is discussed below. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: to align the category's title and scope with the main article United States racial unrest (2020–present). 1857a (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as split; requested by Marcocapelle that I relist the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just created separate year categories, at least for 2020 and 2021, and these year categories are perfectly fine. But there are also 5 articles and a subcategory that span multiple years, so there is no reason to delete Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest after the year categories have been created. Note that "split" in CfD jargon means "diffuse, then delete". In this case Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest is perfectly fine as a parent of the new year categories and for the 5 articles and subcategory that span multiple years. In short: diffuse ok, delete not needed. The only thing I would still change is rename to 2020–2023 or to 2020s. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By-state law citation templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single member categories for templates which impede navigation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support – in my opinion, I think merging the [insert state] law citation templates category with the [insert state] law category is a good idea. But maybe keep that and the [insert state] templates category separate. That’s my 2¢ anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that I could see a state templates category having stuff that does not necessarily involve state laws. Such as perhaps parks, roads, cities, landmarks, etc. That’s why I think the state templates themselves should remain a separate standalone category.
Although the other two appear to be redundant to me (at least in my opinion); and should probably be merged. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. Their opinions on this particular social movement are non-defining in the vast majority of cases. User:Namiba 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian footballers at FC Shakhtar Donetsk

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of traits. While we do have general "[Nationality] expatriate sportspeople in [Other Country]" categories, we do not have any established scheme of microcategorizing them for each specific individual team they may have played for in that other country. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weather events with particularly dangerous situation watches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining characteristic. A "particularly dangerous situation watch" is just wording that the Weather Service sometimes uses when it sends out a weather alert, so the weather events themselves are not defined by whether the National Weather Service used those particular words or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – to be honest, I had created the category because the draft: list of particularly dangerous situation watches wasn’t going anywhere. I’m not going to oppose deletion on this, but I’m not necessarily going to give my explicit support for it either. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s coming from the one who created the category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to ask though. If this does get deleted; can the deleting administrator please salt the title? Because at least one other person wanted to create the category including @GeorgeMemulous. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors in British media

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Medical doctors all over the world frequently appear as talking heads and experts in media coverage of health-related topics and/or moonlight as full-on health journalists themselves, so this would be entirely subjective and unmaintainable: should it contain every medical doctor who has ever appeared in media at all, or is there some specific and arbitrary minimum number of media appearances that a medical doctor has to make before they belong in this category?
So "medical doctors in media" is not a defining intersection of traits in its own right, meaning that no Category:Medical doctors in media parent or "Medical doctors in [Any Other Country] media" siblings exist at all, and Britain doesn't have any special need for this if no other country has such a thing. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it okay. If no other country has one of these, then the UK doesn't need it either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyway, but we should not be doing a three-card-trick, heads we win, tails you lose shuffle with Afd, as has happened before. Perhaps Afd closers should be made to check whether categories proposed as a solution are viable. For the ones I recognised it was defining, indeed the only reason most are notable - do you have examples where it isn't defining? These can be purged. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue is WP:OCARBITRARY. To be viable, this category would have to impose a cutoff as to how many times the doctor had appeared in media before the category became warranted, and it would be completely unmaintainable without such an arbitrary cutoff — but we don't allow categories with arbitrary cutoff criteria. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities formerly served by Chicago and North Western

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Categories for a non-defining characteristic. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize cities for their geographic location on railroad lines that serve(d) them -- and if we don't categorize them for current railroad lines, we obviously shouldn't categorize them for former railroad lines either. Absolutely no other "Cities formerly served by X" categories exist at all but these two, and the category system is not The Book of Lists, where you can just use them to create a list of absolutely anything you want a list of: we categorize things by their defining characteristics, not by every individual characteristic they might happen to possess. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:J. D. Souther albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: https://www.jdsouther.net/bio states "Please note that John David Souther is professionally known as JD Souther (not J.D. Souther)." GoingBatty (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economy of the Empire of Brazil

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2F. Only contains main article Economy of the Empire of Brazil, which is already in Category:Economies by former country. NLeeuw (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association football paintings

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what is the minimum number of articles required for a category, and which guideline specifies this? Cnbrb (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per various previous discussions, five or six are considered ok, or fewer if there is very clear "potential for growth". No doubt someone has links. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually been trying to find out. Have tried ploughing through WP:CAT but can't anything obvious. A clear guideline would be really useful as this is all a bit vague. We can't expect editors to sift through "previous discussions" to ascertain proper usage. Cnbrb (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod, I did check before nominating the category. There really aren't many articles on sports paintings, most of which are wrestling or boxing. There are a few of rugby football ones but not more association football ones. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True; a couple of paintings with "football" in the title are actually rugby or Aussie rules. I thought more might come to light. Cnbrb (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Party lists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Party lists are also lists of candidates. The distinction between the two categories isn't apparent and thus makes it harder to find similar lists in other countries. Dajasj (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest changes made it so that Category:Party lists in South African general elections is not part of Category:Lists of political candidates by nationality, which I believe it should be because it is a list of candidates. Dajasj (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shades of black

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A black horse is not a shade of color, but color black is a defining characteristic of black horses. (BTW: we should do similarly for other subcats in Category:Shades of color, so that one could properly categorize fauna and flora notably associated with particular colors.) fgnievinski (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops of the Catholic Patriotic Association

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with main category and Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association Amigao (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African computer businesspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse this occupation by continent until it's diffused by nationality Mason (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_13&oldid=1246556539"