Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6[edit]

Democrats and Republicans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose containerizing

Nominator's rationale: containerize, mere membership of a political party is not a defining characteristic, people should be in a subcategory by political office or party office in order to be categorized as such. @Peterkingiron and PacificDepths: pinging contributors to an earlier discussion ending in no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nom but this is easier said than done; eg Category:California state senators is not (as yet) split by party. The previous nom suggested creating the subcat Category:California Democratic Party politicians and this nom suggests also Category:California Democratic Party officers and then purging. Oculi (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For many of these individuals, especially the politicians, it's a defining characteristic. Especially given the increased tribalism in U.S. politics. It's likely not defining for, say, an actor who is public about their political affiliation. But that doesn't justify deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the proposal is make each of these categories a diffusing/container category (WP:CONTAINER), with each member belonging to a more specific category (e.g. Wyoming Republican elected officials, Wyoming Republican party officials). The proposal is not to delete the category. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib

That is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't what was proposed. Note that each line begins with "propose containerizing", not "propose deleting". Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with nom that many members of these categories should not belong because party affiliation non-defining for many individuals like celebrities. Have we thought about the right sub-categories to use? I see political office and party office from nominator. Is that enough? What about the class of writers, nonprofit staff, influencers, and operatives who belong to neither of those categories? 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to staff including writers but I presumed (maybe wrongly) that they belong to party offices. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle One example: Andrea Dew Steele as a political operative could arguably be tied under Category: California Democrats. I also thought of Dan Choi and Cindy Sheehan (activists). I think it would be fine to put a bright-line clear definition on the category pages (e.g. electeds, party officials, and their staff). Doubtless these containers will need regular cleaning because Category: Utah Republicans does not suggest WP:NONDEF nor the bright-line restrictive definition. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 19:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Political Party affiliation may be non-defining, but running for office under a specific political party probably is defining, and we do not currently have categories for "Democratic gubernatorial candidates from North Dakota", for example. That example is probably WP:OVERCAT, but we might need a "Democratic party politicians from North Dakota" category or something similar to catch stragglers that don't fit elsewhere. LinkTiger (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support containerizing. It has been a longstanding consensus that these categories are only supposed to be used on people who are actually active in party politics in some way, i.e. officeholders and party operatives, but obviously it's hard to enforce that adequately given the sheer size of the job involved. So creating the relevant party-office intersection categories, and diffusing people into them instead of the parent, is the obvious way forward. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose containerizing as it will contribute to a massive and unnecessary new system of categories. Career politicians are elected a variety of offices throughout their career. Let's take but one example, Ralph Owen Brewster. This article is already in Category:Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Maine, Category:Republican Party governors of Maine, and Category:Republican Party United States senators from Maine. Under the proposal, he would also be added to Category:Republican Party members of the Maine House of Representatives and perhaps other categories for his time on the School Board and the Maine Senate. I do not believe that having 5 or more different categories helps readers navigate Wikipedia, which is the purpose of categorization. If anything, I would support deleting the above categories and keep the more generalized party categories.--User:Namiba 17:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster can be added to Category:Republican Party members of the Maine House of Representatives regardless of this proposal. The only effect of this proposal is that people are no longer categorized as Democrat or Republican if they haven't had a political or party occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there are countless ways that party membership can be defining that do not involve holding office. Rather than creating hundreds of new categories intersecting party affiliation and city council, mayor, county commissioner, school board, sheriff, national or state committee member, and any other way these intersect, I suggest we keep the current system and address whether the existing categories are clutter.--User:Namiba 20:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster would then be in Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Maine, Category:Governors of Maine, Category:United States senators from Maine, Category:Members of the Maine House of Representatives and Category:Maine Republicans, which is 5 categories rather than 4. In any case, IMO the party is defining. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As he already is in Category:Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Maine, Category:Republican Party governors of Maine, and Category:Republican Party United States senators from Maine, he should not be added to any of those parent categories. Of course party is defining, that is why the offices by party categories exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Namiba was objecting to these intersections ("I would support deleting the above categories and keep the more generalized party categories"). Oculi (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that I misunderstood. It could be an alternative way to go forward but that would require a new (massive) nomination. Then I would still suggest first to purge the categories that are currently nominated before starting that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:Alabama Democrat politicians and Category:Alabama Republican politicians(party is redundant) but purge of anyone who is (1) already in a subcat (ass governor, representative or senator (state or federal) (2) not a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level. Party affiliation is not a permanent characteristic and for those who merely endorse a candidate in one election, it is likely to be a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purging party members without any office is what the nomination is about. If that requires renaming to "politicians", so be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a clarifying word like Category:Alabama Democrat politicians would be good. Would it include state party officials (for example Rusty Hicks as Chair of the California Democratic Party)? 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 19:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Democrat politicians" sounds like Democrat Party (epithet) to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways by which partisan affiliation is distinctive outside of holding elected office. Some people are notable for their failed candidacies for office. Others as prominent donors or political activists. What this nomination does is eliminate a partisan category from hundreds of people whose notability is partially or mainly linked to their partisan activities. To continue with the Maine example, Steve Abbott (politician), Donald Sussman, and Linda Bean are three such examples.--User:Namiba 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron's proposal does apply to candidates: "a politician, by virtue of having run for an elected office at any level". We could expand to donors/activists if it is a defining characteristic (George Soros? Peter Thiel?) - though those may rather go a different category taxonomy as these names tend to be national. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 05:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, which articles does this category change exclude? Donors, convention delegates, campaign managers, and more broadly party activists. I don't see why partisan affiliation is not defining to someone who makes their career working in politics, is an appointed partisan officer, or who is an elected convention delegate. If a source routinely describes someone as an active partisan, then they should be in a partisan category, regardless of the kind of partisan involvement.--User:Namiba 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me use another example: Author Stephen King is a staunch, partisan Democrat. Numerous sources describe him as such [1][2][3]. He has never run for office and therefore would be excluded from having a partisan category if this proposal passes. How does this make sense? What problem is this proposal seeking to fix if people like King and other non-candidates would be excluded? Partisan activity is far deeper than political candidacy.--User:Namiba 14:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as to all. I just created George H. Brown Jr. who was temporarily appointed to a Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy by a Republican, and ran unsuccessfully for election to the office he then held, as a Republican. How would he not be a Tennessee Republican, despite never being successfully elected to office as one? BD2412 T 17:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @BD2412 I think notable candidates can also be included in the category. Drawing the line of what should or shouldn't be a defining category is tough. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 05:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:33, 6 December 2022 (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:Cities and towns under jurisdiction of Moscow[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cities and towns under jurisdiction of Moscow to Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a duplicate, as Moscow oblast is coterminous with the city. BhamBoi (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Moscow city is not part of Moscow Oblast. The category contains former cities in Moscow Oblast, now having become part of Moscow city. The category may be deleted because the articles already are in a proper okrug tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add this template so the discussion closes, but this is a bad merge, please vote against as Moscow City and Oblast are not the same.BhamBoi (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi: I fixed the template. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi: what do you think about deletion of this category? (Because the articles already are in a proper okrug category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They both have their own uses and non-overlapping articles. I say keep both, as when I made this, I didn't realize they were different federal subjects. They should both exist. BhamBoi (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know anything about 'Okrug trees', I just tried to erroneously nom a cat for deletion because I thought they were duplicates when they were not. If one has another reason that I don't understand to be removed, I say go for it. BhamBoi (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2022 (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:Singers from Belleville, Ontario[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: dual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Singers from Belleville, Ontario to Category:Musicians from Belleville, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear necessity. With just five people here and only one other person filed in the target, it's not at all clear that Belleville needs two separate categories for singers and musicians at this time -- and with Category:Canadian singers by city having just one sibling category for any other city, there isn't yet a comprehensive scheme of "Singers from Canadian city" to justify this. And for added bonus, Belleville is a small city (pop. 50K), so even if somebody wanted to start actually expanding the Canadian singers by city tree, Belleville still wouldn't be a high priority ahead of the likes of Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary or Winnipeg. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: upmerge Category:Musicians from Belleville, Ontario since that category contains only one article. In either case it should be a dual upmerge. If the merge goes ahead as nominated the articles should also be added to Category:Singers from Ontario. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, since I got confused by this myself and was about to ask why upmerging it to the same place I suggested upmerging it to in the first place constituted an alternative before I realized what Marcocapelle was actually saying, the alternative proposal is to upmerge both categories back to Category:People from Belleville, Ontario and Category:Singers from Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge per Marcocapelle. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 7 December 2022 (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:Basketball players by city or town in India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 14#Category:Basketball players by city or town in India

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kent School, Kent, CT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 14#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kent School, Kent, CT

Category:Continuous mappings[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) Qwerfjkl talk 22:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Continuous mappings to Category:Theory of continuous functions

Nominator's rationale: rename, the proposed name is a descriptive name to indicate that it is a topic category rather than a set category. A set of continous functions is part of Category:Special functions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different speedy rename request

Category:Continuous mappings to Category:Continuous functions – C2D: Per Continuous function. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy, the proposed name would suggest this to be a set category containing specific continuous functions, in fact this is a topic category while the overall set category is Category:Special functions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: pinging nominator at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is certainly a topic category. Oculi (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2022 (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:Ships built at Gosport[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) Qwerfjkl talk 22:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships built at Gosport to Category:Ships built in Gosport

Nominator's rationale: Just created, using my natural "at Gosport", but for consistency with others should be "In". Davidships (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2E. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:00, 11 December 2022 (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.