Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prisencolin (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 28 March 2021 (→Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:Protestant martyrs of the Middle Ages

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Catholic propagandists

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope, both categories mostly contain writers who write critically about the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is propaganda is rather subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, it sounds like the issue is with Category:Propagandists by topic rather than with this specific category. I suggest merging to Category:Anti-Catholic activists.--User:Namiba 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose then the category should be split manually between Category:Critics of the Catholic Church and Category:Anti-Catholic activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable solution. I would support addressing the larger Propagandist category in a separate discussion.--User:Namiba 12:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: containerize, a clear majority of Singaporean people (74% in 2018) is of Chinese descent, so it is not meaningful to categorize them by this characteristic. This issue was raised earlier by User:Johnpacklambert and opposed by User:Prisencolin, as a side-track in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have Category:English people of English descent. When over 70% of a population fails under some heading, we do not categorize by being part of that heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: with respect, I think this nomination is seriously flawed as it would send the incorrect message that the ethnicity of the majority is somehow the norm, and that categories for other ethnic groups (“Singaporean people of Indian descent”, “Singaporean people of Malay descent”, and so on) are deviations or exceptions from the norm. It is akin to putting all male writers in a category called “Writers”, and then having a special category called “Women writers”. I cannot emphasize more strongly that such approaches are completely wrong-headed. Either we have categories for all ethnic groups, or none at all (and place all articles in “Singaporean people”). @Johnpacklambert: I do not think “English people of English descent” is a comparable example, because “English” is not, as far as I am aware, an ethnic group. It is a form of nationality. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • English is very much an ethnic group. There are areas of modern England where the population would not be considered historically English, and there are people of English descent like Henry Ford whose ancestors lived for ages in Ireland but never became Irish and never stopped being English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not being a sociologist, I can’t say for sure if my understanding is in line with contemporary thinking on the matter, but I would have thought that ethnicity refers to categories such as “Asian”, “Black”, “White”, and so on, rather than “English”, “Irish” and “Scottish”. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on further thought I think that when less than 80% of a population is of a certain descent, there is some reasoning for keeping by descent categories. However I think we need to make sure that this category is only applied where we have actual evidence, and it is not assumed or imputed without evidence. I had thought the percentage of those of Chinese descent in Singapore was much higher, but since it is only 74% I think in this case there is adequate argument for having the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another descent category that no one can explain how much of Chinese descent one must be to be defining, how distance that descent can be to be defining, and what WP:RS tell us objectively that it is defining and that the purported descent is accurate. (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories for more insight). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carlos, you've convinced me in the error of my ways. Too subjective, not enough definition as to what "Chinese Singaporean" might entail.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46 and Prisencolin: currently there are a whole lot of subcategories, that is why I proposed containerization instead of deletion. Should the subcategories be nominated for deletion too, or should we limit this to containerization of the top category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All except the emigrants categories should be deleted as NONDEF, etc. "descent" categories. The emigrants categories are both clear in scope and verifiable - and I believe citizenship is defining, therefore change of citizenship brought about by migration across international borders (or overseas) is defining for the individual who actually migrated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION B
  • The most egregious situation would be for “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” itself to be deleted and for “Singaporean people of Indian descent”, etc, to remain because this is exactly suggesting that those other people are “deviations from the norm” which, I have said, is a very bad message to send. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why “Singaporean people of Malay descent” is defining but “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” is not, because the difference escapes me. I do not see how an ethnicity ceases to be defining simply because it happens at one point in history to be the majority ethnic group in a country. It is another thing entirely if the argument is that ethnicity as a whole is not defining because it is difficult to determine whether someone belongs to an ethnic group or not (a discussion for another occasion, perhaps), but in that case all ethnicity subcategories need to be deleted. Moreover, even if being of Chinese descent is “not defining” (which I dispute), what would the justification be for deleting, say, “Chinese people of Hakka descent”? The Hakkas as a group do not form a majority of people of Chinese descent. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Majorcan Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion and upmerging of only entry into "Spanish Muslims". Mallorca was under Muslim rule, as was most of Spain, a lot of it for much longer (though ironically this only entry was born in a Christian Mallorca) - but there aren't categories for Muslims from Granada or Córdoba. This is an acute WP:OVERCAT of location and religion, there are no categories for Mallorcans from any other religion (nor should there be), nor are the larger population of "French Muslims" divided by location (excluding Réunion), or even the huge and diverse population of "Indonesian Muslims" broken down by island. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catalan Muslims

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT intersection of region of birth and religion, propose upmerging to Spanish Muslims. Only one of the four people in the category lived in an independent Catalonia, two are modern Spaniards and one lived in a Moorish kingdom. There is no category for the majority of Catalans who are Catholic, nor should there be as that is equally overcategorising. In a European country with a larger Muslim population, France, the only category split by location is for Réunion, an island in the Indian Ocean. Even the largest and most diverse Muslim country, Indonesia, does not divide "Indonesian Muslims" to "Balinese Muslims", "Javan Muslims" Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of Salzburg

Nominator's rationale: There is only one diocese. They are all Roman Catholic. The anchor article is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian literature researchers

Nominator's rationale: In most cases these are not mentioned in the biographical article text, so not WP:DEFINING. Others are WP:SMALLCAT. This is a follow-up to a similar merge at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Sanai Researchers from Iran. Note: I have already added the contents of each category as an entry or list under "See also" in the related articles on the literature topics (early writers). – Fayenatic London 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of Mexico

Nominator's rationale: To designate the denomination. To match the Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico (city) (which I have boldly created). To disambiguate the city from the state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay nobility

Nominator's rationale: For similar reasons as discussed for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#Category:Gay royalty. Particularly with an historical set, categorising an individual as gay specifically rather than LGBT more broadly is difficult to define. I'm also not sure if nobility is an occupation Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags

Nominator's rationale: Category no longer populated by the software after gerrit:585519 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Our Lady of Częstochowa churches in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:SHAREDNAME Le Deluge (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something, or was it the tail on the third letter? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Category:Cancer survivors tree

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT and WP:NONDEFINING
We have a categories for people who died from all of these types of cancers so these are the equivalent categories for people that did not die. Part of the problem here is that cancer survivors will eventually die of something, and there's an above average chance that it will be cancer which creates a maintenance issue. These odds vary a lot by cancer type: prostate cancer has a 99% five year survival rate while pancreatic cancer is only 6%. The biggest problem is that Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment (even serious ones) notable people contract in their lives. The category headers encourage only adding articles where this was defining and, while this is often personally defining for people I know, I don't think it's defining from an encyclopedic standpoint. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: If there is a consensus to do so, I would favor deleting many of the cause of death categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a disease does not actually kill someone the definingness of it is not enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent. It's hard to define surviving a disease. We also deleted People with cancer which was where articles were kept until the person either survived 5 years or died and then their article would "move on" to either the deaths from cancer categories or these categories. Of course, that left the messy situation if one survived 4 years with cancer and got hit by a bus...they did survive cancer? Due to the inherent uncertainty, particularly when cancers recur, it's best to delete these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations near Mount Everest

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
I can't accuse this category of false advertising: all these mountain peaks are indeed near Mount Everest but they're also in Category:Mountains of the Himalayas. But what qualifies as "near" is subjective and we already have overlapping non-subective categories: Category:Mountains of the Province No. 1 for the Nepalese side of the border and Category:Mountains of Tibet for the Chinese controlled side. In the articles space, we already have List of Himalayan peaks and passes for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian military formations

Nominator's rationale: Newly-created duplicate of extensive hierarchy at Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine Le Deluge (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travancore–Cochin

Propose renaming either:
Nominator's rationale: to standardise on either a hyphen or an endash for spelling the Indian state of Travancore–Cochin (1949–1956). I have no preference, and would be happy to standardise on either form.
I created the establishments categories, using the endash per the head article Travancore–Cochin. I then noticed that the parent Category:Travancore-Cochin uses a hyphen.
To standardise the names, I considered speedily renaming the parent per WP:C2D, but it was ineligible for C2D because the head article's move to an endash had not been discussed. Category names usually follow article names, but there was no consensus on the article name, so I opened an RM discussion at Talk:Travancore–Cochin#Requested_move_12_March_2021, in the hope of finding a consensus one way or the other. But consensus there was none ... so I bring this to a full CFD discussion.
As above, I really have no preference either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khaganates

Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories use Khanate as the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_21&oldid=1014732229"