Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 8

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 17 December 2023 (→Category:21st-century illustrators of fairy tales). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 7
December 9 >

December 8

Category:Immigrants to 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]

Category:Tuberculosis deaths in French 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]
Comment. The only two members of the category were originally in Tuberculosis deaths in Algeria, before it was deleted out of process. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Olof_Sager-Nelson&oldid=1165959036 Mason (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers who died by suicide

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2023 (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:Indigenous politicians of Asia

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Indigenous politics in Europe

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Fictional Chinese people by historical setting

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 (dc̄) 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]

Category:People of colonial West Virginia

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]
  • 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]
    Rationale is updated; didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective which I must have read too quickly. Sorry about that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, but I still don't think lumping all West Virginians prior to 1863 is a good idea, when currently we have a category for only the early ones, matching the time period of other American colonists by state or future state. It'll be much harder to spot them in the midst of a much broader category. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they will still be in Category:Virginia colonial people where they properly belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And completely swamped and lost amid people who bear absolutely no relation to the subject of this article. There are eighteen times as many individuals listed under Virginia—451 compared with 24—along with nine subcategories. Readers will have absolutely no hope of finding colonial-era pioneers of West Virginia if they're mixed in with all of the other Virginians. There might conceivably be value in having the West Virginia pioneers of colonial times added to the list of Virginians, but eliminating their own category creates an insuperable hurdle to those studying West Virginia history. This proposal is tantamount to saying that, "prior to 1863, West Virginia history is only valid as a subtopic of Virginia history". Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia until 1863, the region had its own history stretching back more than a century prior to statehood, and that's just as valid and encyclopedic a topic. There's no good reason for relegating it to the status of a subtopic of some other place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @P Aculeius, they were Virginians during the colonial times. West Virginia was not even a thought until during the American Civil War. They would never have thought of themselves as such. Additionally, as everyone has been explaining to you, pre-statehood West Virginia keeps them seperate just like Category:People of pre-statehood Kentucky. Additionally, there is Category:West Virginia pioneers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You probably wouldn't say that if you had studied West Virginia history—there were several proposals for a separate state over several decades, some of them before 1800! And it certainly wasn't the Civil War that made people in the west consider themselves separate from eastern Virginia. West Virginia had little of the industrialization, manufacture, trade, or large-scale agriculture that made Virginia prosperous—and it still doesn't! Was it the best or wisest course? That's a matter of opinion. But it happened, and the people who settled in what is now West Virginia before the Revolution are a vital part of West Virginia history, though barely a footnote in Virginia history.
      Unlike "colonial", which specifically refers to the period up to the Revolution, "pioneers" doesn't refer to a specific time period, and could include people from many decades after the Revolution. There is absolutely no advantage to anyone in lumping these categories together—this isn't about me not understanding what other people are saying. It's about you refusing to acknowledge the validity of a category of considerable importance to West Virginia history, by making the excuse "they were all Virginians before 1863".
      The comparison to Kentucky is unhelpful: Kentucky became a state in 1792, less than ten years after the end of the Revolution, so there's not a huge difference between Kentuckians of the colonial era and pre-statehood Kentuckians. In West Virginia, that period spans eighty years—nearly three generations—and a considerable chunk of the nation's history. But I also point out that there are only three individuals in the "pre-statehood Kentucky" category, compared with 24 individuals under colonial-era West Virginia.
      So I ask again, what advantage does anybody gain from not being able to find a list of colonial-era people from what is now West Virginia, as opposed to having to hunt page by page through over 450 Virginians for the handful who settled in what is now West Virginia? If you're going to eliminate a category that has a useful purpose, there ought to be a really good reason for it—"West Virginia wasn't a state until 1863!" seems like a pretty weak rationale for doing so! P Aculeius (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial Maine

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:People of colonial Massachusetts and Category:People of pre-statehood Maine. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 of colonial 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]

Category:American serial killers by state

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 to delete Category:American serial killers by state ; no consensus to merge other listed categories. After bandying about for two months, there is a clear absence of consensus for any specific proposal, but there are a number of promising directions of refinement suggested in the discussion that can be further discussed or boldly pursued outside of the scope of CfD. Purging categories to restrict subjects to where they were actually "from" (in the sense of a sustained period of residence) is one possibility. Branching out a subcategory tree for serial killers who were "active in" a particular state or states is another possibility, provided that guardrails are established to prevent an individual murderous drifter from landing in a dozen categories. I suspect that can be resolved through a definition of "active in" that requires three or more confirmed murders (i.e. "serial killing") within the specified state. BD2412 T 21:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 Towers 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]
  • 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, Qwerfjkltalk 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, Qwerfjkltalk 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. Qwerfjkltalk 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]

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:Applicants for refugee status in Canada

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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: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]

Category:Science fantasy characters

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]
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

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 and college shootings in insular areas of 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]

Category:21st-century illustrators of fairy tales

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_8&oldid=1190391519"