Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 8

December 8

Category:Immigrants to Portuguese Mozambique

Propose splitting Category:Immigrants to Portuguese Mozambique to Category:Immigrants to Mozambique and Category:People from Portuguese Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Immigrants to Mozambique and People from Portuguese Mozambique. This is a small underpopulated category that's not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tuberculosis deaths in French Algeria

Propose renaming Category:Tuberculosis deaths in French Algeria to Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Algeria

Nominator's rationale: The intersection between regime and type of death is not defining. I think we should rename this to be the broader category of Tuberculosis deaths in Alegeria as it is the kind of death that is notable, not the location of it. Mason (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers who died by suicide

Propose deleting Category:Writers who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous politicians of Asia

Propose deleting Category:Indigenous politicians of Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Indigenous politicians of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Indigenous politics in Asia. These categories serve as containers for politicians from regions which some loosely associate with indigenous status, such as Kurds and Telugu. However they are applied in a weird way, e.g. a German of Kurd background will be categorized as indigenous politician even though Kurds are not indigenous to Germany. The indigenous peoples categories are probably more useful for ethnicity-themed content, rather than spreading or diffusing them in a geographic scheme.

@Johnpacklambert, Marcocapelle, SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, Carlossuarez46, Dimadick, Justus Nussbaum, and Good Olfactory: ping previous participants. Place Clichy (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a German of Kurd background could still be called “indigenous” because he or she might be proud of their indigenous background. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They may probably be proud of and cultivate their Kurdish background. Indigenous is quite a stretch. Place Clichy (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in contrast to the Americas and Australia, the term "indigenous" is ill-defined in Europe and Asia. At best you can speak of ethnic minorities. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The more accurate description with be "politicians with an ethnicity that is not a nationality". I am not sure that is a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous politics in Europe

Propose deleting Category:Indigenous politics in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Indigenous politics in Asia. In its current state, a container category for some regions including Politics of Catalonia and Politics of Tatarstan. Not all politics in Catalonia are related to indigenous politics, regardless to the degree in which one considers Catalans to be an indigenous people.

The only content here actually related to Indigenous peoples per the definition given at that article is: article Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples Secretariat and child Category:Indigenous rights organizations in Europe, which are already in Category:Indigenous rights organizations. They don't need another merge target as they are mostly about indigenous rights elsewhere than in Europe, such as Incomindios Switzerland or Free Tibet.

@Johnpacklambert, Marcocapelle, SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, Carlossuarez46, Dimadick, Justus Nussbaum, and Good Olfactory: ping previous participants. Place Clichy (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in contrast to the Americas and Australia, the term "indigenous" is ill-defined in Europe and Asia. At best you can speak of ethnic minorities. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not a useful term in Europe or Asia. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Chinese people by historical setting

Propose renaming Category:Fictional Chinese people by historical setting to Category:Fictional Chinese people by period

Nominator's rationale: Agreement with Category:Fictional characters by period; probably not C2C because it is the only category of this type, other than parent. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming AHI-3000 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial West Virginia

Propose merging Category:People of colonial West Virginia to Category:Virginia colonial people

Nominator's rationale: West Virginia was never a colony but a part of the Colony of Virginia Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle per nom, but dual merge also to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. Besides I guess it would be helpful for clarification to nominate the target to Category:People from the Colony of Virginia, and maybe do that for the other colonies too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I suppose you mean the name of the category per the recent discussion in speedy rename. I think it was decided that it would be "People from colonial *state name*" for all. Should I nominate those for renaming?
I agree, the dual merge is a better idea as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps start nominating Virginia and Massachusetts first because these appear to be the most ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging; no strong opinion on renaming, as I didn't participate in or know of the other discussions. Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia in colonial times, people who lived within its boundaries is a valid a categorization—and it does not equate to "pre-statehood", which covers an entirely different scope. Only a small number of persons occupied what is now West Virginia prior to 1776–1783, and those people tend to be celebrated in West Virginia history. This is very different from the group that began settling the country en masse around 1795, and continuing to statehood in 1863. But it's also very different from people living in colonial Virginia east of the mountains—a large number, quite relevant to the history of modern Virginia, but not so much to West Virginia. They would swamp the entries for West Virginia, which would be difficult to identify as a group, just as they would if merged into a category containing say, Civil War generals who weren't born until half a century after the Revolution. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Merge to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia ~~to address P Aculeius feedback above~~ to maintain categorization of the geographic area. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact opposite of what I said—why would we put the pioneers of 1750–1776 in the same category with Civil War general Albert Gallatin Jenkins? That doesn't make any sense! P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial Maine

Propose merging Category:People of colonial Maine to Category:People of colonial Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Maine was never a colony but a part of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but dual merge also to Category:People of pre-statehood Maine. See also further comment in discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge Per Marcocapelle. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial Florida

Propose merging Category:People of colonial Florida to Category:People from Spanish Florida and Category:People of pre-statehood Florida

Nominator's rationale: Contains one page and three categories which are already present in the other two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added 5 more articles. If the category is kept, the subcategories should be removed from the proposed target, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there were also French colonies in Florida (French Florida), so I'm not sure the target is right. Place Clichy (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, people of colonial Florida is a tricky one to categorize because it did change hands a few times. I get why Spanish Florida has its own category; Spain had the longest hold on the place before the U.S. got it. Because "pre-statehood" and "colonial" have the same subcategories and (before the recent addition) only one page, I think the merge "pre-statehood" works best for French and British colonial people of Florida. Either that or move the French colonists to the "colonial" category.
@Marcocapelle, what do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not move French people to the colonial subcat because there was no French colony in Florida. They are sort of pre-colonial, and therefore part of pre-statehood. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle. That's fair enough. I was just reading on this because (here) because I wasn't aware the French got there before the Spanish. You're right, it was never officially a colony of the French like it was for the British and the Spanish. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American serial killers by state

Propose deleting Category:American serial killers by state
Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Misguided attempt at subcategorizing Category:American serial killers by location, done deeply incorrectly by a user who appears to deeply misunderstand how categories work: "from", here, has not been applied in the normal sense of where the person was actually resident, but has instead been pressed into overtime duty to mean anywhere and everywhere that were "at some point active in their killing", regardless of whether they lived there or were just temporarily passing through. Ted Bundy, for example, has somehow become "from" seven different states at the same time, Samuel Little is now "from" three states at the same time, Israel Keyes is "from" four states at the same time, and on and so forth. But that's not how "from" works.
In addition, most (though not all) of the articles in this tree were left in the parent category alongside the new state or city specific categories, which is also not how categorization works either. And although this isn't a deletion rationale per se, I do need to point out that they also left an absolutely appalling trail of redlinked category residue at Special:WantedCategories by misspelling the state names when trying to add these categories to articles. And I don't mean once or twice, which would be understandable (even I make typos sometimes!) — I mean so many misspelled redlinks that basic WP:CIR questions are in play.
To be fair, the parent category is large enough that subdividing by state could be acceptable — but that would have to be implemented by somebody who actually knows what they're doing, which the creator of this tree clearly doesn't. So even if there's a consensus to keep them, there would absolutely have to be a deep cleanup job done to ensure that the people are actually removed from inappropriate categories for places they weren't really "from". Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is renaming the categories to "in" instead of "from" an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would categorizing serial killers for "in" be useful? We normally only care about from, not "in", when it comes to categorizing people by location. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix contents/links (tho I am open-minded to be convinced otherwise). I think this is a fine subcat structure in principle. But I think this CfD is a good venue for explaining how the Wikipedia does categories. To whoever did this - from means they were born or raised or had significant residence in the state... nothing else. You cannot create a new meaning for this. Fix this, or you may see all your work undone. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make more sense to categorize it as "Category:Serial killers active in [state]" instead of "Category:Serial killers from [state]." Silent-Rains (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be a useful tree for us to have? You're the second person in this discussion to just assert that we should, but nobody has given any rationale for why we should. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is where these serial killers became notable. Who would care where they came from? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And how would we avoid category bloat? Namely, where's the value in having to add a serial killer to nine or ten different categories for the same thing just because he moved around and didn't commit all his killings in one place? We need to avoid category bloat, so nobody needs to be in nine or ten "serial killer + geography" categories — each person only needs one of those, so it has to be either "where they're from" or "leave them at American and don't subcat at all". Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silent-Rains has the same thought as I earlier had. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The likelihood of a serial killer to commit crimes in only one state and be from that same state with no strings to another state is, as a wild and conservative guess, below 50 per cent. Those who practice this trade will be better defined as Americans. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Serial killers active in state" as per Silent-Rains. I can see those categories being useful for people who are interested what serial killers have been active in their state, though it will take a bit of research and work to properly organize that (many serial killers operated across states) Ashvio (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix individual entries, per Stefen Tower. Obviously useful to subdivide a large category by state; upmerging them makes absolutely no sense. But clearly "from" means "born or raised in, or lived there for a significant period" (which could include the time the person was committing murders—obviously significant to the category). I don't think "in" makes sense for people categories, since people are by definition mobile, and it would be confusing to categorize serial killers by the states in which their victims were killed, although the killings themselves could logically be categorized by location. But if Bill Killmore lived in Kansas at the time of his crime spree, and didn't live in Nebraska, though he might have killed someone there, then it makes sense to categorize him as a "serial killer from Kansas" than as a "serial killer in Nebraska". Although I have no objection to a category such as "serial killings in Nebraska" that might include Bill Killmore or his Nebraskan victim. P Aculeius (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, failing that purge. Per Bearcat, it is unlikely serial killers were only active in one state, and it would be excessive to categorise them by.every state they were active in.
If they have to be kept they need a lot of clean-up to ensure they are only categorising by birthplace. Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we know from past experience at WP:CFDWM (i.e Category:Citizens through descent, Category:Songs written for films) that it's unlikely anyone will actually have the time to go through and properly purge category trees with hundreds or thousands of entries. Perhaps in an ideal world this tree should exist properly, or perhaps not, but let's solve the problem now rather than merely kick it down the road with a "keep and purge" closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "Serial Killers from Michigan" Should be a subcategory of "American Serial Killers."--Eastview2018 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC) (rescued from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 22 by * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and purge; this one looks pretty easy to do, I'm willing. If we are not going on to delete Category:American criminals by state, it would be absurd to have that hierarchy but remove all serial killers from it. If not kept, the members must also be manually merged to that parent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london makes a very good point that articles shouldn't be removed from the Category:American criminals by state hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Applicants for refugee status in Canada

Propose merging Category:Applicants for refugee status in Canada to Category:Refugees in Canada

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this distinction is defining. Only the fact that they're refugees and are in canada are the defining features. Mason (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponyms in psychology

Convert Category:Eponyms in psychology to article Eponyms in psychology

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that being an eponym is a defining feature. It might make an interesting list, but I don't think it warrants a category Mason (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Eponyms. There is currently only one article in the category so there isn't much to listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Belongs in a list. I have broader WP:SHAREDNAME concerns about other parts of this category tree as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fantasy characters

Propose deleting Category:Science fantasy characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Science fantasy video game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Science fantasy" is an ill-defined genre, even scholars admit it. It veers into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to place characters here and the current category members bear that out. (Even George Lucas said that Star Wars should be considered fantasy). There is nothing wrong with the original scheme of placing characters in both science fiction and fantasy if they qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Plenty of works of fiction can be described as science fantasy, and I'm sure they can be verified by reliable sources too. Also see Category:Science fantasy franchises and Category:Science fantasy by medium. Characters from any such science fantasy media can be described as science fantasy characters. It's more accurate to call them such if they don't fit neatly into fantasy or sci-fi character categories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created those categories too. The fact is that you apparently believe science fantasy is a set genre when it is demonstrably anything but. The entry in the Science Fiction encyclopedia states that "In the Terminology of sf readers, and more especially publishers, this term has never been clearly defined" and that "Twenty-first century texts are rarely described as Science Fantasy". The more that I think about it, Category:Science fantasy and everything that's a subcategory of it should probably be deleted for this reason, but I'll wait until this gets deleted or not before attempting that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make up the concept of the science fantasy genre, and I only gathered preexisting subcategories together. Category:American animated science fantasy television series has more than a few examples of science fantasy works. I don't know if others will disagree with science fantasy being a distinct subgenre that is covered by external sources. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that that category was made by a user who was since indefinitely blocked for disruption. My argument isnt that it doesn't exist as a genre or that the science fantasy page ought to be deleted, just that categorizing things as it is too messy. Even reliable sources disagree. Here is one example where the video game Anthem is called science fantasy. Except that this equally reliable source calls it a "sci-fi adventure". It's like this across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is a whole tree of Category:Science fantasy, it may be helpful to have a broader discussion at a WikiProject talk page to see if the entire tree ought to be deleted or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per AHI-3000's explanation. A relatively well-defined subgenre. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to Portuguese Angola

Propose merging Category:Immigrants to Portuguese Angola to Category:Immigrants to Angola and Category:People from Portuguese Angola

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Immigrants to Angola and People from Portuguese Angola. This is a small underpopulated category that's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University and college shootings in insular areas of the United States

Propose merging Category:University and college shootings in insular areas of the United States to Category:University and college shootings in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in here that is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somehow, either as nominated, or else to Category:School shootings in North America if consensus is that Puerto Rico is not in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom, as there is no state or territory category. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Category:School shootings in North America because the territories are not in the US; they are insular areas (territories) of the US and these prepositions matter. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:School shootings in North America. Even if "University and college shootings in the United States by state or territory" existed, such type of category is, in itself, a self-contradictory, an oxymoron, because the territories are not located in the United States, thus, shootings in such localities could not possibly be shootings in the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt Merge to Category:School shootings in North America per the local consensus at WP:PRUS. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century illustrators of fairy tales

Propose merging Category:21st-century illustrators of fairy tales to Category:Illustrators of fairy tales and Category:21st-century illustrators
Propose merging Category:20th-century illustrators of fairy tales to Category:Illustrators of fairy tales and Category:20th-century illustrators
Propose merging Category:19th-century illustrators of fairy tales to Category:Illustrators of fairy tales and Category:19th-century illustrators

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to difuse by century. There are only 88 people across the 3 categories [1]. Mason (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If merged, dual merge also to Category:19th-century illustrators etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]