Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

October 21[edit]

Category:Psychiatry awards[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:Psychiatry profession and Category:Medicine awards. The other parent Category:Psychology awards also seems perfectly valid, so I am going to merge it there too. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only article and generally it seems there is no clear boundary between psychiatry awards and psychology awards. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These are separate disciplines. Psychiastrists are doctors; psychologists may not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. I changed the second target for that reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2021 (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:Psychiatric terminology[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. – Fayenatic London 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete and move Glossary of psychiatry directly in Category:Psychiatry, except the one latter article the other articles are not about terminology but about a content topic within the field of psychiatry and already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (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:LGBT legislators 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: speedy keep, WP:SNOW applies (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This category was first created in September because there were categories for both Category:LGBT members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Category:LGBT members of the Scottish Parliament separately filed as subcategories of Category:LGBT legislators (as well as three members of the Welsh Senedd individually filed there without being subcatted). However, the category has been arbitrarily emptied out of process by anonymous IPs several times in the past three days, initially with no explanation whatsoever and then later with a claim that politicians in the UK are not called legislators. (But then explain Category:Legislators in the United Kingdom, which has existed for over 15 years.)
As always, however, editors arbitrarily emptying categories themselves is not acceptable Wikipedia practice — people may nominate categories they don't like for a deletion or renaming discussion, but may not simply empty them out themselves without following the established process. Accordingly, I'm listing this here for discussion about a potential new name for it, but removing it from articles or categories without consensus is not acceptable — especially since this category was simply removed from the contents rather than being replaced with a different category, meaning that the removal pulled everybody out of the parent trees entirely (which is also not acceptable). Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Legislator is a term that includes members of many different law-making bodies. This means that it is a correct description for a UK member of Parliament or of the Senedd, though not as precise. The current form also follows similar categories named "LGBT legislators in...". Sjö (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keep category as it is since there is consensus for it. 92.7.77.12 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the IP who's been editwarring over it. Interesting about-face, there. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2021 (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:Wikipedian Graphic designer[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 merge C2A. – Fayenatic London 13:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently-created duplicate category. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can move without deleting. It's not necessary to delete from my view. We don't have graphic designer categories yet. Arian Writing Talk 06:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. My mistake. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry I did not see that category when I was working. Arian Writing Talk 06:15, 22 October 2021 (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:Trains that appeared in Chuggington[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 deleted as G4 by Izno * Pppery * it has begun... 14:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is clearly an example of WP:PERFCAT, and a nearly identical category was previously deleted [1] in July of this year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2021 (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:People from the Collectivity of Saint Martin[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:Saint Martinois people ("Alt 1"). – Fayenatic London 17:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Saint Martin (island) is divided between the French Collectivity of Saint Martin and the Dutch Sint Maarten. The name of the main people category for the French part is cumbersome and its subcategories use the ambiguous form of Saint Martin foos. These problems can be resolved by using the demonym Saint Martinois. This proposal follows discussion at WP:CFDS and Talk:Saint Martin (island)#Saint Martin category names. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Fayenatic london. Sorry, I was referring only to the child category. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saint-Martinois is the denonym in French. In English it goes without -. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this comment of mine was made before Alt 2 was added as an option. Super Ψ Dro 13:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that the Saint Martin category names are inconsistent, so I am hoping to get a decision to keep or change this category name so that its subcategories and the culture and society categories can be renamed consistently. TSventon (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker, Oculi, Fayenatic london, Super Dromaeosaurus, I have added some alternatives above, please let me know if the format is wrong. TSventon (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1 and Alt 4. I think Alt 1 is the best option but if most people don't agree with it, I'd support Alt 4. Super Ψ Dro 13:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1 followed by Alt 4 - it does seem likely that the adjective in English drops the - (as it is Saint Martin rather than Saint-Martin). Oculi (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer alt 1, 2 or 3 for brevity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Martinois people" gives me 7 Google results. 5 of them have "Saint-" before and 1 of the rest is a Wikipedia page. Only this newspaper uses "Martinois people" [2]. Super Ψ Dro 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: after renaming, the occupational sub-cats using {{Fooian fooers}} will also need to be updated, as they currently link to an obsolete page, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Saint_Martin_people. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 7 November 2021 (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:University of Notre Dame faculty[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: Withdrawn by nom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd like to merge this into Category:University of Notre Dame as a subcategory thereof. It seems like a natural place to put it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2021 (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:Acts of the Oireachtas[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:Acts of the Oireachtas of the 1920s, Category:1923 in Irish law (etc). – Fayenatic London 12:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these categories have any more than 4 pages, and some have just a single page. It's more useful to have them all in the same category, and then sort them by year within that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps a wider proposal is needed. What is in modern Irish Law (by year) that is not also in Acts of the Oireachtas (by year)? They cannot be many Common Law decisions of note in modern times. Could these be merged as first step? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nom. It might be appropriate to merge into decennial categories, where there are not 5 articles per year. If a merger proceeds, Category:1976 in Irish law etc should be additional targets, as is necessary for a proper upmerge. However, I suspect that the Irish Parliament will have passed more than 5 Acts each year, though not necessarily that many requiring a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are of course usually many more than 5 acts passed each year (on average about 40), but very few get Wikipedia articles; of the 64 passed since the beginning of 2020, only two have got articles, being the first two passed in response to Covid in early 2020. If there ever is a serious project to create articles for many more Irish statutes, it could be broken into decade, or even into year, but given where we are at the moment, a single category makes most sense. — Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't it be appropiate to merge them into 4 or 5 years per legislative periods? --Just N. (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
– Fayenatic London 22:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With decades it will be easier to implement than with legislative periods because certain years will need to be split in the latter case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Marcocapelle. I have no objection at all. I've already voted in favour of a merge into legislative periods but I'll be happy with decades as an alternative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be better for decade category names to take the form "Category:Acts of the Oireactas from 1960 to 1969" or "Category:Acts of the Oireachtas of the 1960s" or a similar form. The normal practice for these kind of categories is for the word "Act(s)" to be at the start of the name, and for the date(s) to be at the end. James500 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, decade categories usually start with the decade. Please check the subcategories of e.g. Category:2020s. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are legislation categories. They belong to a wider group of categories that are not generally organised that way. Please check, for example, the subcategories of Category:Statutory law by legislature. Putting the word "Act(s)" at the beginning has the advantage that it is compatible with either capitalization of that word. It is presently capitalized in the overwhelming majority of WP articles because the laws of all or most English speaking countries say that it is supposed to be. James500 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In every category tree by topic, the century, decade and year category names start with time while most other category names start with the topic. If you want to change that, please go ahead proposing it, but then it should be changed all over and not just for Acts of the Oireachtas. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not proposed any change. This is already the status quo for legislation categories generally, including the existing year categories for numerous countries' legislation, including but not limited to Ireland. James500 (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment on the proposal from James500, if not the objection to it below, that it would be a lot better to move from Category:Acts of the Oireachtas 2020 to Category:Acts of the Oireachtas of the 2020s, keeping the current style and capitalisation. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT says "a category which does have realistic potential for growth . . . may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". I think that if we merge these categories now, we will end up having to unmerge them later, having regard to the level of coverage these Acts receive. James500 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2021 (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:Go competitions by region[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistency of naming with other Go competitions categories by region and by country Coastside (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should have noted that this request meets criterion C2E: Author request. Coastside (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2021 (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:Wikipedian members of the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a defunct project category, as the link on the category page describes one event that happened in 2009. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is an example of WP:MALVOLIO. I could understand it if the category were empty, but it isn't. Clearly there are editors, including active ones, who continue to choose to put themselves in the category. I could understand it if the initiative had nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, but it does. There was an event that occurred at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in 2009; I was one of the editors who spoke at it. But because it was a single event does not mean that the effort is defunct. I continue to see new editors registering new accounts and putting themselves into the category. It's a good thing for Wikipedia content to have new editors with subject expertise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To flesh that out, aside from me, here are three editors who are currently active who continue to identify with that category: [3], [4], [5]. Those are just three that I recognize offhand; there may be others. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Category:Wikipedians interested in neuroscience has only 22 members, it would probably be helpful to merge the nominated category into that one in order to join forces. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I would prefer that over deletion, at least slightly. Your comment gave me two ideas: (1) now, make that 23 (plus the five in the subcategory Category:Wikipedians interested in cognitive neuroscience‎), because I added myself back into it (having previously blanked my userpage for reasons we don't need to discuss here), and (2) I made the nominated category into a subcategory of the "interested in" one, which is entirely logical. But I would prefer to keep it as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in neuroscience, rather than to merge it. If the rationale for merging is "to join forces", it's worth understanding that most members of any of these categories are also members of WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, which is where the collaboration over content improvement actually takes place. So unless "join forces" is really a euphemistic way of saying "make one larger category", such a merge would not really accomplish more in terms of content improvement than having been made into a subcategory. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have notified that WikiProject of this discussion: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to merging. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No policy-based reasoning is provided for deletion, nor would I expect someone to invent a time machine in the near future and prevent the event from occurring. KoA (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We seem to have several similar categories. Should they not be merged? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logically speaking, similarity can be a reason to merge, but it can also be a reason to group as parent/subcategories, unless there is no clear basis for distinguishing one category from another. Here, the basis is clear: all editors who support the initiative are also interested in neuroscience, but not everyone who is interested in neuroscience is involved in the initiative. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I want to say some things that are broader in nature. I'm a firm believer in carefully evaluating mainspace categories. The categories for articles have a direct bearing on their encyclopedic usefulness to our readers, and should be organized with care. But userspace categories are another matter. A ridiculous amount of energy was wasted in the debates over humorous user categories. Here, we have a category that is found useful by active editors who are subject matter experts, and who self-identify as belonging to it. (I dislike "pulling rank" based upon my real-life identity, but I'll say here that I was a long-time university professor working in neuroscience, and I have been a Society for Neuroscience member for decades, and I'm personally familiar with how members of that society become interested in improving Wikipedia.) On the other side of the discussion, there is what amounts to an arbitrary perception of category "orderliness". People who go through userspace in order to impose their "orderliness" preferences on others are doing nothing to serve our readers. And if you don't like my saying that, WP:ANI is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relatively beginner Wikipedian here, so take with a grain of salt, but I agree that eliminating the category entirely seems unnecessary, and not particularly useful. If nothing else, its existence serves as proof that these institutional initiatives are useful: think of how all the contributions by users listed under this category reflect on SfN's 2009 initiative and other programs of this kind. It might also serve as inspiration to Wikipedians out there—SfN members or not—who might stumble across it and as a result search for or even start similar programs to SfN's 2009 initiative. Ultimately, I think—hypotheticals aside—it helps build the community of neuro-intrigued Wikipedians and promote neuroscience updates on Wikipedia, and that alone should probably be sufficient grounds for preserving it. On a separate note, subcategorizing under Category:Wikipedians interested in neuroscience sounds like a good idea: if you ask me (again, me being a relatively new Wikipedian) the more interlinked these categories and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience are, the stronger the community and the better the coverage of neuroscience content on Wikipedia. Cffisac (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2021 (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:Boonie Bears fans Wikipedians[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) 07:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a userbox, questionable collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 21 October 2021 (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:Wikipedians who like Ghost in the Shell[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) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a user who has been inactive since 2016, questionable collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:21, 21 October 2021 (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:Wikipedians who like Valvrave the Liberator[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) 08:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a userbox. This was nominated separately from the below nomination since it wasn't previously discussed back in 2020. The same logic applies, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:21, 21 October 2021 (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:Wikipedians who like Cocotama[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) 08:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale These categories were previously kept at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Category:Wikipedians who like Cocotama because SpinnerLaserzthe2nd joined themn. They have now left the categories, putting them in an identical situation to the ones that were deleted at that CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:16, 21 October 2021 (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/2021_October_21&oldid=1127488379"