Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 27

< November 26	November 28 >

November 27

Category:MonmouthpediA

Propose deleting Category:MonmouthpediA - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: We don't normally place article pages (e.g. Monmouth Police Station) in WikiProject categories. The talk pages of articles related to this project are in Category:MonmouthpediA-related articles, which is how pages of interest to a particular WikiProject are normally categorised. An alternative to deletion would be changing the text of this category (which currently says "This category is for articles ...") and purging of article pages. DexDor^(talk) 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Monmouthpedia is notable outside of the Wikimedia Community we have categories which include content related to a notable subject. Gnan garra 03:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonmouthpediA and (for example) John Rolls (d. 1801) may both be notable subjects, but the John Rolls article makes no mention of MonmouthpediA so any relationship to MonmouthpediA appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that person. Thus, even if there was a category for articles about the topic of MonmouthpediA the John Rolls article wouldn't belong in it. Cf Category:Articles linked to by Toodyaypedia which categorises talk pages. DexDor^(talk) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but many of these notable subject wouldnt have been written without the effort put into the project in the first place, making Monmouthpedia the reason they werent lost and therefore a defining characteristic. The sad thing is you can find 1000's of notable subjects when you look into the history of any place that should be covered but arent. Until a project like this comes along they never will be written about. Gnan garra 00:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete whatever the notability of the encyclopedia project, we don't categorize this way. We don't have Category:Topics appearing in Encyclopedia Britannica. This is a bad category as it does not cover topics about Monmouthpedia, it categorizes topics contained in it / worked on by it. This is not the type of categorization that should be used on article pages, it is instead the type found on article talk pages, such as when WikiProjects banner talk pages to indicate they work on the article, or have it in scope. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the creator back in 2012. I probably thought, as I do now, that this was about the Project itself rather than project articles. Apart from the Monmouthpedia article, there do not seem to be any valid other members. (Interestingly that article is NOT a member!) welsh (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can glean, this is a process within Wikipedia created by Wikipedians. This category is sort of the inverse of how categorization actually works around here: Subjects are categorized by what defines them, whereas this subject is defined by what is categorized in it. The members of this category may be defining in terms of how they relate to the subject, which of course is Monmouthpedia, but it doesn't work the other way around. Has Monmouthpedia played a vital role in the history & development of any of the contained topics? No, they existed long before it did. They played a role in its development; it did not play a role in theirs. This is a very backwards approach to categorization. Could I just create my own little wikicommunity, have it gain some momentum, and then place it as a category tag on articles I wish to be within its scope? And as for nom's suggestion to purge of articles and leave only WikiProject pages, at present there are only two such pages in the category, a template and a subcategory. I'm inclined to have this deleted. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clairvoyants

Propose renaming Category:Clairvoyants to Category:People alleged to be clairvoyant

Nominator's rationale: It goes without saying that clairvoyance has always had a rocky relationship with science. This category might be haphazardly applied to articles whose subjects only claimed to be clairvoyant, but the truth is that we may never know for certain if clairvoyance is real, let alone that these people really were clairvoyant. And even if they really are/were clairvoyant, the alternative name (or something similar, e.g. "People who claimed to be clairvoyant") would still not be wrong either. It's way more objective. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We don't currently have any "People alleged to ..." categories and I'm not sure that's a good road to go down. Adding some text (perhaps along the lines of "This category is for articles about people who are notable for having claimed or been alleged to be clairvoyant.") might be better. I note that we have, for example, Category:Magicians. DexDor^(talk) 22:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "We don't have it now so we shouldn't" doesn't strike me as a good argument. Having it or not having it says nothing about whether we should or should not - in fact, it may be because no one's thought to bring it up yet so consensus hasn't determined if it's necessary. And as for magicians, well, "magician" doesn't mean someone who practices a paranormal art these days - it has more to do with illusionism. It, therefore, is an objective name for someone who practices illusionism. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:People labelled as clairvoyants -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A similar discussion was held for Category:Psychics here. I think I agree with the closer that trying to rename these seems to be making things more difficult than they need to be. A user suggested that the same logic would dictate renaming Category:Gods to Category:Alleged Gods, and so on and so on, ad nauseum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We have categories like Category:Self-declared messiahs. Before people invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I just want to point out the precedent that being a self-declared anything and relying on it for at least a significant portion of the subject's career & life is apparently grounds for categorization. Perhaps we should purge the category of people only described by others, at least as far as we can ascertain, to be clairvoyant, but beyond that if the label is self-applied then it could be kept. As far as your example, most "Gods" would qualify as a specific class of fictional characters, as they would be conceived, labelled, and believed in as such. Thus, in certain contexts, the "Gods" would not merely be "alleged gods" - they would objectively be labelled as gods. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Toward Oppose With religious (or spiritual) beliefs I think it's troublesome to inject skepticism into the category names. Do we really want to wonder aloud if Christian saints are really in Heaven, Category:Dead people and angels the Roman Catholic church labels as saints instead of Category:Roman Catholic saints? (If it is renamed, "alleged" has a derogatory connotation so 70.51.44.60's alternate rename is better.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For those, we could say something like "People canonized by the Roman Catholic Church" because that would be absolutely true, even if others disagree that it was a wise move on their part. That would denote a significant tag affixed by a historically-significant organization. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unnecessary disambiguation as there is no need for a split between "true clairvoyants" and "people alleged to be clairvoyant". Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It has more to do with sending the message that we on Wikipedia do not blindly believe them to have been clairvoyant, but acknowledge that being referred to as such might have been significant in the subject's life. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that argument is WP:OR and synth in drawing your own conclusion. Gnan garra 00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, it's actually taking a step back and acknowledging what sources say without endorsing it. I actually find your argument below to be more rife with OR and synth - someone claiming to be clairvoyant doesn't make them clairvoyant; we can certainly say they claimed to be, especially if they tried building a career out of it and in the process became a notable (for our purposes) figure. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose if a person identifies as a clairvoyant, and is recognised as a xlairvoyant then they are a clairvoyant it isnt wikipedias responsibility to make judgements about the authenticity of any such claims nor to censor those claims by adding disclaimers Gnan garra 00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opposition to Francoism

Propose merging Category:Opposition to Francoism to Category:Anti-Francoism

Nominator's rationale: This category (which currently contains one article and has no parents) appears to have the same scope as the target category. DexDor^(talk) 18:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in Health Care

Propose we should standardise, as far as possible, using Healthcare, which seems to be the predominant usage, rather than Health Care. At present there is no consistency.Rathfelder (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venue Suggestion @Rathfelder: The discussions here are normally pretty concrete, e.g. I'm proposing changing this to this. I would either start proposing concrete naming changes here for specific categories or, if you're looking for a consensus from subject matter experts first, I would try to get more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. (Or maybe I'm wrong and you'll get more input here.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are mostly outside the scope of Project medicine. They are about the organisation of hospitals and clinics and money. Categories I would propose to change include:

Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that it's clear that "healthcare" is predominant yet. Our article is at Health care. The AP Stylebook still mandates "health care", as does the Chicago Manual of Style, I believe. "Health care" is in the OED but "healthcare" still is not. If anything, I think we should be opting for the more traditional "health care" in category names, since it would match our article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment & oppose on principle, this as RevelationDirect suggests is better served being a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as it is something that should be given a less rigid time frame to resolve, if a formal format is required to force a resolution than a Request for Comment where arguments can be put with equal weight rather the defensive approach of a CfD Gnan garra 00:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Action

Propose splitting Category:Action to Category:Action (physics) and Category:Action (philosophy)

Nominator's rationale: What a mess. Though nominally the main article for this category is Action theory (philosophy), it seems to be conflating Action (physics) and Action (philosophy), with a bit of Action (fiction) thrown in there too. The simplest solution would probably be a split, though I'm open to other ideas. BDD (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you explain what the text and parent categories of the two proposed categories would be? Many of the articles currently in this category probably wouldn't belong in either of the proposed new cats. I've removed a film from the category and I can't see why, for example, rock climbing should be in this category when hundreds of similar activities aren't. DexDor^(talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]