Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Category:Citadel Communications[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 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the head article Citadel Communications, and the only station it currently runs: WSNN-LD. Unless we fill up the category with stations it no longer owns, there is no potential for growth. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 14 July 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:Baked goods[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Category:Baked goods

Category:Loughborough Lightning (WCSL) cricketers[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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article Loughborough Lightning (women's cricket) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 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:Victoria Bucureşti players[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:Victoria București players. Although the consensus was to "rename", since the target already exists and is populated, this is best interpreted as consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The associated FC is Victoria București. [I'm new to CFD usage and later realized this would have been better submitted as a speedy rename, using C2D criteria.] —ADavidB 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:30, 16 July 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:Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per People's Welfare Party (Malaysia). I have only just moved this page (from a poor translation to a translation that was used in citations), so it is not eligible for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if a translation of a political party's name is available (and here it apparently is) we should use the translated name in both article and category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 15 July 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:Australian Aboriginal art[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. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Aboriginal art" is a subset of the correct identification of the collective 300 plus cultures which are know as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that is what this category covers. The main article is titled Indigenous Australian art. Gnangarra 09:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Gnangarra 09:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Indigenous Australian art as a better title. Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is the preferred term, Indigenous isnt universally accepted.[1] Gnangarra 11:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft (which hasn't been updated for a while. @Laterthanyouthink: is this still useful?) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on category names, having had no experience in the area, and not sure whether the provisions applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are necessarily applicable when referring to categories (Indigenous seems more concise for this purpose, but I'll abstain on this one). There are 10 articles beginning "Indigenous Australian": some redirect to "Aboriginal..."; one or two should probably be renamed "Aboriginal...", some already have it noted in the lead that the article refers to both groups, some don't. These would all need to be reviewed. Is it desirable to have such lengthy article names (if changed)? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mitch Ames - I would hope that that draft could be completed and become a useful reference tool, but I haven't been back to it for quite a while and haven't had any input from others. The basis I was working off was this first summary of what I found, but the one in Conventions definitely needs more work to complete it. I'll try to get back to it soon. I think that it is important to have a cited reference point/style guide on the matter. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the scope of the category is the same as the scope of "the main article" - as used in {{Cat main}} - then both category and article should have the same title. So it would probably be appropriate to rename the article as well, if the category is renamed to "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art". Mitch Ames (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it would be better to rename the article as well Gnangarra 11:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is also the parent Category:Australian Aboriginal culture and the grand-parent Category:Indigenous Australian culture, so there is some confusion. Not to mention Category:Torres Strait Islands culture. Oculi (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand the problem. If there are articles about Torres Strait Islands art in the nominated category they can be moved out to another category and the nominated category can keep its current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article should be split. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is currently the case, but the article may better be split. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The response would be Otherstuffexists, the reality is its an issue of bias that needs addressing not just in categories but also in 1000's of articles but this particular issue is the category doesnt match the its main articles content so fixing this first is the aim. I came to this because really offensive and racist words were being used in a parent article, which I fixed. You cant eat a mammoth by yourself in one sitting. Gnangarra 10:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to propose that we hold off for a bit longer until all issues have been considered. While there is indeed a preference to use the longer term when talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I'm not convinced yet of any barriers to using "Indigenous Australian" as a shorthand term when used as a tool for classification or article title. We have a Minister for Indigenous Australians. AIATSIS itself has many pages and documents where it uses Indigenous. Websites created by, for or in consultation with various Indigenous people use this term. Just a few examples: The term Indigenous Knowledge as a reference to intellectual property (not criticised by the AIATSIS response). The title of the document doesn't prevent it from referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within it. Something I was just working on earlier: CSIRO and BOM, who have worked extensively with representatives of various peoples. While I'm all for using specific and preferred terminology within articles, I'm just not convinced of the necessity of creating a lot of long and unwieldy names for articles and categories. I think I would like to consult further - with a bit more time, I could look up some library reference material, perhaps email the AIATSIS librarians, etc. I agree that there's a lot of improvement needed, but it would be good to know that we're basing these decisions on sound principles, which can be applied consistently. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having separate categories for Aboriginal culture and for Torres Strait Islands culture also leads to more concise names. They are two separate things, right? Let us first try to reach consensus on that question. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gnangarra is saying no, they are the same thing, or at least usually so treated by ?academia ?the art market nowadays. And at least parts of the government - this page from a government agency summarizes the issue, including "Indigenous Australian" now being deprecated by some. He may be right, or partly right (as Laterthanyouthink seems to suggest), but I get suspicious at PC frameworks being pushed on us here by a single editor - often they are not quite as universally accepted as claimed. Do we actually have any content on Torres Strait Islander art, I wonder? Gnangarra probably should have begun by getting the main article renamed. A category rename to match would then have gone smoothly, I expect. From Torres Strait Islanders I read that though "ethnically distinct from the Aboriginal people of the rest of Australia, they are often grouped with them as Indigenous Australians. Today there are many more Torres Strait Islander people living in mainland Australia (nearly 28,000) than on the Islands (about 4,500)." Politically the islands are part of Queensland. It's a bit like wanting to rename to "Art of the United Kingdom and Isle of Wight" perhaps (or Isle of Man, where there are considerable genetic differences). Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not the same, but they all are the traditional owners whos cultures, and nations covered the whole of Australia before colonialisation took place. History has used various terms all depreciated to dismiss the notion that 300+ distinct cultures, nations, languages, and traditions existed before then casting Australian being "Terra nullius". This isnt a PC framework being pushed, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is the accepted way to describe these people/cultures/nations as a collective entity. The main article uses the short hand Indigenous Australian art(something thats not universally accepted), currently the category is Aboriginal Australia art. All I'm saying is the category(and for that matter the article) should be consistent with its subject area in changing the name of the Category I have proposed to change it directly the universally accept term for the collective of these cultures. Yes then daughter categories would be created as needed for the appropriate cultural groups. Your comparison "Art of the United Kingdom and Isle of Wight" is nonsense because that would correlate to "Art of Australia and Christmas Island" Gnangarra 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't (did you check where & what the Isle of Wight is?) The convention of WP is usually that category names follow article names. I repeat, it was a mistake to try & do it the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the category doesnt follow the article Gnangarra 11:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's why people above are suggesting it should, per normal practice here, rather than adopting your new proposal. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so normal practice is to fix an error by first replacing it with a bias term, and have another discussion, rather than just fix it in one step. Gnangarra 04:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, you want to change both the main article title of Indigenous Australian art, and this different category name - and if that is not the case, why not?. I'm saying that category names normally follow article names, so you are doing this in the wrong order, trying to change the category first. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have two discussions to fix one problem the category name. There is no rule thats says you must fix the article name before you can fix the category, what purpose does having two discussion about the category serve, especially as the response in the second discussion will be its just been change why change it again Gnangarra 07:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at this stage. There's quite a bit more work to do on trying to standardise names of articles and categories, and work out if/where subdivisions (of Indigenous/Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander topics or categories) should occur - best discussed on the noticeboard (to which I am not ready to contribute yet - still working through a lot of stuff, including updating the style guide mentioned above), but in the meantime this seems like a reasonable change. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:15, 18 July 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:American secret military programs[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 18:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most military projects involve some level of secrecy (especially in the early stages) so this is subjective.  Some of the articles (example) don't mention secrecy.  The articles in this category (mostly aircraft and satellites) that I've checked are all in more suitable categories (including at least one US category).  The Black project and Black budget articles (which are specifically about secrecy) should be upmerged to Category:Secret military programs. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and secrecy is usually a temporary characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 15 July 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.

Novels about wars[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 the "set during" scheme proposed by Czar. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to the same format for all of them. For now, I have taken the "about" form as the default. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Much clearer. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 05:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Has anyone checked whether these categories are used solely for novels about these wars? Are there really no novels in these categories which are set in these wars, but not about the war? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not. The current X war novels titles more or less suggest that it should be about the war, but in fact these titles are quite ambiguous and that is another reason why renaming is recommendable. It is very likely that some of these novels are not really about the war, so they will eventually be pruned if this rename proposal goes ahead. If that is a problem (which imho is not a big problem) then an alternative rename could be to change all of them to "novels set in the X war". As is hopefully clear from the rationale, the main reason for the nomination is to bring some consistency here, without too much ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, at least some standardization takes place this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom: better to be precise and unambiguous, imo. "Vietnam War novels" to me doesn't necessarily mean about the vietnam war, but could include those related in some other way, such as being popular among soldiers fighting in it. buidhe 08:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to set during, e.g., Category:Novels set during X War as Category:Novels set during the Conquest of the Americas uses above. Agreed with nom that the current version is too ambiguous. Agreed with BHG that these novels are not necessarily about the war. (I checked.) I would think that novels, less than non-fiction, would not be about the war, but I could see those categories being created in addition if appropriate. Set during should solve almost all cases though—the point of these categories is that the novel's milieu is a "defining" trait. Separately, should also consider renaming "X War books" categories to "Books about X War" per its parent, Category:Works about wars. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "set during" rename.★Trekker (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) The option offered by Czar is the best option imho. It is more precise than the nominated "about" and it is less ambiguous than most of the current titles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose about is implying great significance, authority, and accuracy in regards to the wars. Set in implies that the wars have a significant relation to the events in the Novels but that such relationships are a work of fiction. As BHG has already noted are all these writing actually about the war rather than the war being just component element of the time in which the novel is set. Gnangarra 09:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more "about" categories; how objectively do we decide how much "about" the subject something must be to merit inclusion and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much about it? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these are kept, renaming along the lines proposed by User:Czar is preferable than either the existing or nominated names. At least we know what we're purporting to categorize. Whether the "set during" is defining for the novel will still stump objective standardization, so delete is still my first choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 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_July_14&oldid=1073192543"