Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who miss and like Stan Lee[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 23:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:USERCAT "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". This category does not aid collaboration. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even to Stan Lee. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (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:Cossack Hetmanate people[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/merge to Category:People of the Cossack Hetmanate, and defer to editorial judgment on the appropriate parentage. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the target would be the more usual naming format within Category:People by former country where the country name ends with words like Empire, Caliphate etc. The sub-categories by occupation already comply with the proposed pattern. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 16 November 2018 (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.

Categories labeling people as Queer[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 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Click [show] for the other categories in this bundle →
Nominator's rationale: Queer is currently used as a derogatory label for LGBT people. The Wikipedia article: Queer says "beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word ...". This categorization juxtaposes Wikipedia's voice as an advocate for such reclamation which is an inflection of bias. Many of the nominated categories, themselves, include a cautionary warning that states "this category may inappropriately label persons." This is a huge risk to take for a barely appreciable gain. The categories state that its members have self identified by this moniker but I have found cases where the sourcing is less than reliable. And it hardly matters how someone identifies their self when the chosen label is disruptively derisive at best. We would not (I certainly hope) institute a category scheme for S***s, N*****s, or M*****F*****s just because some who have formerly been targets of the pejorative slander decided to embrace, reclaim, and recast the label. While a minority may prefer such recasting, an untold majority are prompted to get over their disdain for the label, post haste. After all, what could be more mainstream than a Wikipedia category?--John Cline (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Rescoping of the parent Category:Queer was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_5#Category:Queer; the discussion was relisted and kept open for two months without achieving consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While nominator has a fair point, just plain deletion does not look right to me. The categories should probably be merged to their LGBT counterparts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That would be controversial in itself, at least for people who self-identify as Queer. Per the main article: "Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations and is often preferred by those who are activists—namely, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight; or see themselves as oppressed by the homonormativity of the politics of the broader gay or LGBT community. In this usage, queer retains its historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows queer-identifying people to avoid the sometimes rigid boundaries that are associated with labels such as gay, lesbian, or even transgender." These are the type of people who accuse (self-identifying) gays of being overly conservative. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm withdrawing my earlier comment, but mainly because I checked a number of articles and many of these articles are in one or multiple LGBT categories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a notification of this discussion at WikiProject LGBT studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose While some people do still find the word to be offence it has been largely reclaimed and has been used in tons of academic studies as well as everyday life for many years. There are tons of people that are within the LGBT comunity that identify as "Queer".★Trekker (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason I prefer deletion is that merging requires one to affirm a corollary relationship from one to the other which I strongly suggest does not exist. The one, rooted in bigotry, is an intolerant lie which, earlier, I called "pejorative slander"; it can not simultaneously be a legitimate counterpart of an objective classification that strives to remain devoid of the hateful underpinning that we might otherwise force-ably conjoin. Because they are not synonymous terms, it is highly probable that the majority of the subjects involved are already members of an LGBT category that one might mistakenly call the other's counterpart. I will research that probability and report on my findings as soon as I practically can. Meanwhile, I thank you for your reply.--John Cline (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't "queer" now mean a catch-all term for non-primary gender identities? For instance, following this article: [1] would suggest these categories should exist, but only for those who self-identify as queer. (Now, this may be a fallacy on my end, following that article.) SportingFlyer talk 14:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. The category is useful for identifying people that primarily or solely identify as queer. Excluding such people from our classification scheme because we judge their chosen label to be wrong and bad does a disservice to readers researching queer topics. It is also inherently non-neutral, especially if we dubiously claim to be acting on behalf of some offended silent majority.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This needs a lot less Wikipedian opinion, and a lot more in the way of verifiable, reliably sourced references. Both in general usage and usage for each of the category members. Right now, current application on-wiki is appearing to be subjective, which has me leaning towards Merge/Delete. - jc37 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Category:People who self-identify as queer would be a more adequate description and similarly for the subcats. Currently there are plenty of LGBT people in the tree of this category about whom the article does not mention whether they self-identify as queer, I suppose these articles should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete Category:Queer magazines, which serves no apparent function. Definitely keep Category:Queer theologians and Category:Queer theorists because queer theory and queer theology are recognized names of things (if necessary, purge it of people who are theorists/theologians and identify as queer but who do not do queer theory/theology). Rename others using Marcocapelle's "People who identify as" language to make it clear that we are not using it as an umbrella term, and purge members that do not belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic do you think we should rename the other LGBT categories too, since it's pretty much all about self identification?★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @*Treker: No, I'm not sure how that follows? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • For BLPs, "People who identify as ____" is the implied scope for all categories relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion. I don't think any of them should have that explicitly in the category name, but it could be made clear in the description of the category.--Trystan (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it feels a little biased doesn't it? Why would identifying as "queer" be treated any different than identifying as gay or lesbian?★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @*Treker: To clarify that we are not using "queer" to refer to anyone who is gay, lesbian, bi, trans, (asexual, polyamorous, kinky)... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it would be good to have consistency and avoiding bias when it comes to categories. Those that identify as queer shouldn't be treated differently. I respect your points about avoiding it being confusing but I personally feel consistency and equality is more important.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if some gay people do identify themselves as "queer", and their articles contain verified information to that effect, that does not mean that we need a special category for them when other gay-identifying categories exist, making a "queer people" category totally redundant and unnecessary. Wikipedia doesn't need a special category for each and every label that people may use to describe themselves. WP:OVERCAT applies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty amazing that you're making a straight faced comment like this while referring to all LGBT people as "gay". Most of those who identify as "Queer" would not be homosexual men. This comment reeks of ignorance on the subject.★Trekker (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From the article Queer "is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender". I don't see sense in using a generic term to categorize.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose as Queer encompasses identities that do not strictly fit into homosexual, bisexual, and transgender. Queer encompasses pansexual, genderqueer, intersex, gender variant, etc. These categories belong on Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2018 (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:Education schools in New Zealand[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. Timrollpickering 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:ENGVAR, colleges of education seems to be the preferred term in New Zealand. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 4 of the 5 articles use 'College of education'. Oculi (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Style alone demands a renaming: other reasons leave no doubt. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2018 (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:Education schools in India[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. Timrollpickering 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:ENGVAR, colleges of education seems to be the preferred term in India (or perhaps teacher training colleges). At least merge the two. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - many of the articles use 'College of education'. Oculi (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2018 (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:Education schools 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: rename to Category:Teachers colleges in Canada. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:ENGVAR, teachers college seems to be the preferred term in Canada (or perhaps Normal Schools). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is normal school and there are slightly more articles using this than 'teachers college' (or teachers' college). Oculi (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added normal schools as an alternative in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to teachers colleges. While it's true that more of the articles seem to have "normal school" in their titles, in reality every one of those articles bar none is about a defunct institution, while all of the extant schools in the category are using something else. In contemporary Canadian English, the term "normal school" is never used anymore — the term used today is virtually always either "teachers college" informally or "faculty of education" formally, and never "normal school" anymore. And even the article at normal school explicitly says that the same situation applies everywhere else too, so I'm incredibly unclear on why the article is even located at that title at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (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:Education schools in the United Kingdom[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. Timrollpickering 23:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:ENGVAR, teachers training college seems to be the preferred term in the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That is the correct term. --Bduke (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2018 (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:Education schools in Australia[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. Timrollpickering 23:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:ENGVAR, teachers college seems to be the preferred term in Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That is the correct term. --Bduke (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2018 (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.

Ottoman Syria[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: Kept. Timrollpickering 21:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Ottoman Empire level, since Ottoman Syria, geographically defined roughly as the equivalent of current Syria, Lebanon, Israel, State of Palestina and Jordan, was neither a country nor a country subdivision, except for a very brief period until 1534. In 1534 it was split and later more splits followed. Syria (broadly defined) was merely a historical region in the Ottoman Empire and, as far as I am aware, we do not have year categories for any other historical region. Moreover in 1865 Syria Vilayet was established which was much smaller and roughly corresponded to the southern half of current Syria, while many articles in these 1865+ Ottoman Syria categories relate to Palestine (region) rather than to the territory of Syria Vilayet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as nominated It is not obvious that these articles will end up in a category or sub-category of Category:Ottoman Syria where they obviously belong and currently reside as part of the categories being nominated for deletion here. The current nomination will result in a loss to proper article navigation in WP. Hmains (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad we agree that this is about multiple provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and we never categorize years or establishments by categories that represent multiple provinces simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2018 (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 France to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic[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. Timrollpickering 23:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other country's subcat of Category:Ambassadors to Czechoslovakia is split in this way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a mere duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Czechoslovakia (1918-1992) under various incarnations was only active for 74 years, barely a human's lifespan. Do we really need to subcategorize by era here? Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2018 (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/2018_November_16&oldid=1073191753"