Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5

[edit]

Category:Victims of Sikh terrorists

[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) ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not an expert on this subject, but it seems like an inappropriate overcategorization. I don't think we should sort categories by the religion of those who killed them. TM 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also fine with DexDor's proposal. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (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:Discrimination against Muslims

[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: merge for now, without prejudice of recreating this category as a subcategory of Category:Islamophobia if properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, the subcategory Islamophobia. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recat. This should be a subcat of Islamophobia and of Religious discrimination. Incidents of discrimination should go here, while articles relating to Islamophobic attitudes/publications/whatever that are not about incidents of discrimination would not go here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roscelese! What if there are more/enough articles fitting "Discrimination against Muslims"? --Mhhossein talk 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I'm afraid I don't understand your question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese: Hey, your rationale is that the category has only one category and I meant to say that there are more suitable articles for it. Moreover, Islamophobia is a sort of discrimination but every discrimination is not Islamophobic. There are plenty of subjects which are specifically related to discrimination against muslims. That's why we can have a separate Cat for 'Discrimination against Muslims'. --Mhhossein talk 06:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I'm sorry, I still don't follow. I'm advocating keeping the category and just putting it in a better place in the category structure. "Islamophobia" should be the parent category of "Discrimination against Muslims," not vice versa. Discrimination against Muslims is ipso facto Islamophobic discrimination, but not all our articles on Islamophobia are about discrimination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Roscelese: Just recatting the way you describe would merely result in creating an empty category, I can't imagine that this is your intention. So what is your full idea, which articles would you move to this category after recatting? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (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:Ruthenian voivodes

[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this category is not about an intersection of nationality/ethnicity with a general type of official, but instead this is about people in a specific office, they were the heads of the Ruthenian Voivodeship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2019 (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:McClatchy publications

[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: keep. nomination no longer qualifies since the article has been moved as a result of an RM discussion (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is The McClatchy Company, and it's also a subcategory of Category:The McClatchy Company. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is currently a requested move for this category's related article page The McClatchy Company. The move discussion can be found at Talk:The McClatchy Company#Requested move 2 February 2019.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2019 (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:Germanic people

[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hesitant why this is split? Either as proposed, or perhaps merged which Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Germanic peoples. The argument above that a category is needed for individual people of Germanic "ethnicity" is a joke, and the result is a category placing people of supposed Burgundian, Thuringian, Cimbrian, Saxon ethnicity, which are peoples of the Antiquity rather than "ethnicities" in the modern sense, on the same level with categories purely based on nationality regardless of ethnicity such as Liechtenstein people, Luxembourgian people, English people etc. If I may dare to bring it to Godwin level, even the Nazis, who knew a bit about Germanic ethnicity, considered that their ethnicity was Aryan rather than German, Germanic, Thuringian, Saxon or Liechtensteiner. None of these can be considered ethnic groups for the categorization of individual people as defined by WP:ETHNICRACECAT. The groups as a whole such as Cimbri, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, Flemish people etc., though, are definitely worthy of encyclopaedic interest, and should be categorized in Category:Germanic peoples or a subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator (changed username). Thanks to arguments presented I now support the solution of Marcocapelle and Place Clichy. PPEMES (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Aleksandr Grigoryev, Blomsterhagens, RainbowSilver2ndBackup, Brandmeister, User:Peterkingiron and User:Greyshark09, who have participated in earlier related discussions. Krakkos (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (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:Office comedy television series

[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a clearcut genre distinction between "office comedy" and "workplace comedy". It's certainly true that not all workplace comedies are necessarily set in offices per se (e.g. there are shows like Superstore), but it's not at all true that "office comedies" and "non-office-workplace comedies" get analyzed as two distinct genres of television show that would need to be separated from each other within the category system. There is, for example, an entire minigenre of thinkpieces on the internet about how Superstore is basically the direct successor of the canonical "office comedy" series, The Office (e.g. [2], [3]), and once you factor for the slight distinction of setting the "genres" largely put the same kinds of characters in the same kinds of stories and plots. Not to mention that in most cases, the "workplace comedy" categories exist only to parent the "office comedy" categories, rather than to actually contain distinct content — with one exception, which really highlights the absurdity of this distinction, being that Yes Minister is in the British workplace category, rather than the British office category, even though it's very much both things at once. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Office comedies & non-office workplace comedies aren't different genres, but I'd say that office comedies are a subgenre of workplace comedies. Whilst it's true that some shows have copied The Office US, it is a remake of The Office UK. Also, the format of The Office is a variation on previous workplace comedies such as Fawlty Towers. I disagree that most workplace comedies are office comedies. There are many, including Fawlty Towers, Taxi, Cheers, Dinnerladies, Scrubs, No Angels, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Party Down, 2 Broke Girls and Clipped whose settings are very different to offices. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, not your own gut instinct, is who would have to tell us that "office comedy" is distinct enough from "workplace comedy" to require two separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As my nomination — which is a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal — already made clear, all of the "office comedy" categories are already paralleled by "workplace comedy" categories that already exist. So we don't need to rename these to new reduplications of categories we already have, we just need to merge them into the categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2019 (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:Government in the United States

[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: keep Category:Government in the United States, but rename Category:Government of the United States to Category:Federal government of the United States. I will make the target page a disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think the distinction is clear here; the category text claims that the "in" page is for state/local governments and the "of" page is for the federal government, but the contents suggest that isn't being clearly followed; many of the subcategories of both overlap with federal and state topics (for example "Impeachment in the United States‎" and "Public services of the United States" both have federal and state topics). If it's necessary to have a separate category for the federal government perhaps that category should be moved to Category:Federal government of the United States. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I then took an extended excursion thru Category:Government by country, sampling an assortment of other countries, including some more with Federal systems, as well as a variety of other arrangements. I ended up checking into a total of 20 different categories, for the following countries: Australia‎, Brazil‎, Canada‎, Colombia‎, Ethiopia, France‎, Germany‎, India, Indonesia, Philippines‎, Russia, Sierra Leone‎, South Africa‎, Spain‎, Switzerland‎, Taiwan‎, Thailand‎, Tuvalu‎, Venezuela‎, Zambia‎. I also looked into Category:Federalism by country, as well as a slew of other categories.
To my complete NON-surprise, they were ALL something of a jumble, with some in better shape than others, but all of them needing work. I certainly won't pretend to have a total, comprehensive plan. But I did arrive at some basic conclusions:
  • Most countries (except the very smallest) have a mix of national and sub-national governments. Therefore, the primary/umbrella categories should take the form "Government IN Country Xyz", rather than "Government OF Country Xyz".
The next rung should consist of a whole set of categories for national governments, which would be called either "National government OF Country Xyz" or "Federal government OF Country Xyz", depending on the particular country.
The "Government IN" umbrella categories will also include all of the sub-national government categories (states, provinces, etc), along with the local government categories -- and, of course, ALL of the other categories, i.e. ministries, judiciary, legislatures, etc. etc. (all of which are currently contained in the "Government OF" categories).
Okay, I guess that's about it. I really have to run now! Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the current situation is really a problem. By far most articles about government are either wholly about national government or primarily about national government but also applicable to subnational and local government. Not surprisingly these two types of articles are mixed. Apart from that, there are some articles specifically about subnational or local government which each (can) have their own subcategory. Separating national government from government in general sounds like an unpractical way to go. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, thanks for giving some thought to my remarks. Here's the thing: I spent at least an hour-and-a-half looking through and carefully examining all those categories I listed, and the confusing welter of sub-categories and articles that mix all levels of government in together makes it very difficult to navigate and locate items that may be of interest -- even when a person is fairly familiar with the country in question, but all the more so when it is an un-familiar country.
This problem would be greatly alleviated by separating out, to the extent possible, the state/provincial & local material from the national/federal stuff. A big job, to be sure! Sorting things out for the whole complement of categories will require a massive, hands-on effort -- more than any one editor can realistically deal with. Perhaps a "Task Force" could take it on. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per User:Anomalous+0, whose comment is spot on: Most countries (except the very smallest) have a mix of national and sub-national governments. Therefore, the primary/umbrella categories should take the form "Government IN Country Xyz", rather than "Government OF Country Xyz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 9 March 2019 (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.

Foo in fiction

[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 all, without prejudice to any subsequent proposal to delete any or all of the categories.
The discussion was a bit disjointed, owing to renaming and deletion being both on the table. It's clear that there is a consensus not to keep the categories at their current titles, but unclear whether there is a consensus to delete any.
Pinging the contributors @Doniago, Carlossuarez46, Marvin The Paranoid, Mr. Guye, LaundryPizza03, Steel1943, Dimadick, and Roscelese in case any of them wants to follow up with a new nomination to delete or merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Nominator's rationale: As with my past CFRs of this nature, make it clear that these categories are only to be used when the element of fiction is primary rather than incidental to the work. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all suffer from all the problems of Foo about X type categories. How much about X must the Foo be for inclusion (and who decides that threshold question), and what reliable sources tell us that the Foo is at least that much about X? All WP:OR categories basically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to echo @Carlossuarez46:'s comment - who gets to decide whether a fictional work is primarily (for example) about amnesia? If there is ambiguity, do we err on the side of inclusion or exclusion? Is a work like Memento (film), where amnesia is key to the plot, about amnesia, or about the difference between a deductive view of the world vs an objective one? But I'm not sure I'm firmly committed to the "Delete" viewpoint either; I can imagine that someone who is fascinated with Hynosis, wanting to read / listen / view more works on that topic, so perhaps there is value to these categories - and in that case, the Rename makes perfect sense. A really paranoid android (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that if there's a dispute about a specific work then that could be discussed at the Talk page for that work? In any case, I think a discussion about whether these types of categories are appropriate would need to be handled on a much larger level; this is the fourth (or more) CFR of this nature I've opened up (all of which have passed to date), and it's safe to say there's a vast number of categories of this nature. I think an RfC would be necessary to make a broad decision to delete them. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current title format would be appropriate for category redirects, as has been done at the similar CfD on October 2, 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep zombies, memory, and amnesia. Based on the category contents, these seem to be central premises of at least many of the relevant articles, and scholarly work has been done on these topics. Delete hypnosis (and Category:Films featuring hypnosis): the contents appear to generally include hypnosis in a trivial way, and those articles where it is relevant can be categorized with the mind control articles. I'm not clear on what the distinction is between brain-to-brain and telepathy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 9 February 2019 (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.

Mosques by city

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Marcocapelle: WP:SMALLCAT only applies where there is no hope for the category expanding. Just because categories may only have one or two members doesn't mean they should be deleted. The city I checked first, Manisa, has two members right now, but I'm not buying the assertion that a 300,000+ city in a Muslim-majority country, there are only 2 notable mosques. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately every category has hope of expanding, the question however is by how much and how soon. Categorization aims to help easy navigation between similar articles and it is not helpful for navigation now to have a whole lot of 1 or 2 article categories which may be expanded to 5 articles each in the next 50 years of Wikipedia existence. If it would concern a state capital with 2 million people more than two notable mosques might be expected but in this case with Manisa two mosques isn't a really exceptional low number. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These categorization is a starting ground/place for further expansion (either slow or fast). My usual rule of thumb is, if there are at least two worship place in a particular city, then it is worth to make a special category for it (e.g. Category:Mosques in city ABCD). If there is only one mosque in that city, then only I will move it up one level (and not make the category for that city) and put it into the country categorization (e.g. Category:Mosque in country AB, in which ABCD is a city in that AB country) Chongkian (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - despite the considered approach by the nominator, and it is to be commended, - there is quite a considerable disincentive for editors in the Indonesian set to see or understand the regional approach to features that articles can be made about - when the locality to country shift in this proposed change might occur. I believe in the southeast asian context to revert to country level denies complexity of regional issues. Not necessarily a cogent reasoning for cfd territory - but for understanding context - the opportunity to expand from a lpace name than a country name is something that should be encouraged rather than reduce. JarrahTree 23:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The assumption here by some seems to be that all mosques are default notable. That is not true, so for now we should categorize based on the article we have, not the articles that people dream may one day exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of these contain 1 or 2 articles and don't aid navigation. It's not clear these cities have many more notable mosques but, if the article count ever gets up to 5 or so, no objection to recreating.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Yet again, a complete misapplication of WP:SMALLCAT which is - quote - [for] categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members and does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Unless these cities/regions have no other mosques worthy of articles, they don't fall into those criteria. And given that Wikicommons has images of at least five mosques in Acre, 12 in Alexandria, five in Bandung, seven in Manila, seven in Jhelum, five in Makhachkala, seven in Doha, six in Moscow, and 17 in Tripoli, it seems clear that these categories are expandable. If the consensus is to delete, then there should be no prejudice against them being recreated at a later date when there are more existing articles. Also, in the case of Tel Aviv, if it were expanded to cover the whole Tel Aviv district, or even just Tel Aviv-Jaffa, it may already pass your five article criterion. Grutness...wha? 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having an image in Wikicommons does not imply at all that the mosque is a notable subject. Places of worship are mostly notable because of their historical value, and only a minority of places of worship actually have historical value. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (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:Births in Sillery

[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 to Category:People from Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge. The older category Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City, which will become a sub-cat of this one, is well-populated, and may be worth keeping; if anyone thinks it should be merged, please start a new nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not use the category system to segregate people who were born in a place from people who moved there after birth. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Delete and still rename Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City as Category:People from Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge. When this discussion is completed, I can make the proposal for the renaming of Sainte-Foy's category, as it appears that this would need to be addressed separately. Cap-Rouge, Quebec City, the location of the first French settlement established in North America, as Charlesbourg-Royal in the year 1541, was previously an independent city, as well, until the 2000–06 municipal reorganization in Quebec.
Rename. Thank you for your proposal, as I erred in its naming. I should have followed the categorization and naming conventions exemplified by Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City on the English language Wikipedia, and which was created as the Wikidata item and claim of Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City (Q13284499), employing the property category of associated people: Property:P1792, which combines person related to this place (Q19660746) and Sainte-Foy (Q14875569). Sainte-Foy, Quebec City is directly, geographically adjacent to Sillery, Quebec City. Both were formerly independent municipalities of the province of Quebec, in addition to being human settlements and parishes dating back to the 1600s of New France, and legally independent from Quebec City, until 1 January 2002. However, Sillery was the only one of the two aforementioned municipalities to retain an administrative status — as a French: quartier and its residents are legally represented by the French: conseil de quartier de Sillery (See conseils de quartier (in French).) Therefore, I propose that Category:Births in Sillery be renamed as Category:People from Sillery, Quebec City.
As an aside and FYI, if one is not aware, there is a Wikidata property, category for people born here: Property:P1464, which is utilized to make the claim of Category:Births in XYZ, for place of birth (Q1322263) XYZ, e.g., Category:Births in Thuringia (Q8076345). Several other language wikis utilize these Wikidata birth location category claims as categories on their respective wikis, e.g., Catégorie:Naissance en Thuringe, and are used on Commons, e.g., Category:Births in Thuringia, but it appears that the en wiki does not. Dcflyer (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I realize that there is a distinction between "people from" and "people born in," hence the two separate Wikidata claims regarding these two distinct facts. The category currently under discussion contains seven individuals whom were born in Sillery, as well as having had spent significant portions of there lives there, including it being the place of their death and/or burial, according to cited sources. There are other individuals whom are the subjects of additional English language Wikipedia articles whom meet the criteria of "people from" this location, when it was a legally recognized independent city, as well. Following the logic and speculative nature of your statement, "Category:People from Quebec City will probably also contain people who lived there as an adult but not as a child," Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City should be deleted, as well. Dcflyer (talk)
  • Marcocapelle's point is that we do not use the category system to separate "people born here" from "people who were born elsewhere but lived here as adults" into two separate groups. We use one category to contain all people who belong to either group, and do not create separate categories for the born-in vs. lived-in-later distinction. So no, the arguments against this do not also apply to Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City — that may perhaps need to be merged as well, but the reasons for or against it will be completely different from the reasons for or against this. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize, as I previously stated, the distinction between "people born in" and "people from," as well as the :en: wiki's utlliization of the latter category as a singular one which is based upon both of those biographical data, despite the fact that Wikidata makes clear distinctions between the two. Consequently, "born in," "people from," and "died in" Wikimedia categories are created on Wikidata, as was the case with Sillery, Quebec City, and these three categories are utilized on Commons, and to the best of my knowledge, on most or all of the non-English language Wikimedia projects, as well. The issue that I was actually addressing in my reply to Marcocapelle was the statement, "Category:People from Quebec City will probably also contain people who lived there as an adult but not as a child." I misinterpreted the statement in terms of Quebec City's relationship to Sillery, and I further added to the confusion by addressing Sainte-Foy, Quebec City's :en: wiki category, in the same context. For that I apologize, and did not mean any disrespect for the constructive input added to the discussion.@Marcocapelle: _____ Dcflyer (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2019 (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.

People of African descent

[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: containerise/delete as nominated. This follows the recent precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_1#Category:American_people_of_African_descent. Here are links to the diffs (containerise, 1,672 pages;[4] delete, 235 pages[5]) in case editors find scope to expand parent categories such as Category:Afro-Bermudian. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize (or delete if there aren't any subcategories), it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, Necrothesp, Hmains, and Dimadick: pinging contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Containerise all per nom. I regret that this is necessary, because it prevents these categories being used where there are reliable sources where the origin is too vague for by-nationality categorisation, e.g. "mother emigrated from West Africa in the 1930s" ... but it's the only way to prevent them being used a proxy form of racial categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise/Delete all per nom. These categories are for people of specific national descent, not general ethnicity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific ethnicity, yes, but not just "he's black so he must be of African descent" (or equally, "he's white so he must be of European descent"), which is the issue here! That's far too generic to categorise here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice would be Delete all, because no one has shown that having (how distant?) African (how much? from which part? and for how long?) descent is meaningful. Cleopatra was African by birth, Macedonian by descent, would her descendants - had she any - belong in these categories or is someone using OR by looking at skin color as proxy for descent (no one has put Elon Musk in Category:Canadian people of African descent for example; does he not belong? what Reliable Sources say so?). These are even more screwy because we all have African descent (no more than 70,000 years ago, and 100% if we're homo sapiens), right? Alas, Containerise and Delete is a first step toward normalcy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize/delete per nom. This stuff is really not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all descent categories per C46 above and per non-defining, DNWAUC etc (some of the articles, e.g. Chakib Hocine, have categories for countries that aren't mentioned in the article text). Containerizing would be a small step in the right direction. DexDor (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course someone's descent is defining as long as it's recent. Where someone's parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents came from is generally pretty defining to them. Where their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents came from probably less so! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone may consider where their parents etc came from (and also things like being married, being tall, ...) defining to them, but that doesn't mean it's a defining characteristic of the subject of the article. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary intermediate categorization level. Intermediate descent categories by source or destination continent or region have burgeoned lately out of nowhere, that's where they should go back imho. Place Clichy (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or containerize all per above, and per precedent of deleting "descent" categories. Catrìona (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - sources are not always available on the specific country of origin that the individuals are from. Therefore it isn't necessary to containerize. If there aren't reliable citations to prove ethnic origin, than the articles shouldn't be in the category in the first place. The delete !votes above, in particular SMcCandlish and DexDor, display a lack of understanding of WP:COP and are little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT Inter&anthro (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take the effort to check the articles that are in these categories you will notice that nearly all of them lack reliable citations. These categories simply serve as a magnet to classify people by color of skin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Inter&anthro: If the specific country of descent cannot be sourced, then the article should definitely not be in any descent category. Au contraire, if an ethncity is mentioned in reliable sources for an individual, and it has a significant role in their biography, the article can (should) be placed in the relevant ethnicity category instead of an of African descent category. There are plenty, such as Category:Afro-Brazilian people which you cited. Place Clichy (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In a lot of these countries well over 80% of the population is of African descent. We should get rid of these categories for the exact same reason we do not put people in the category American people of European descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which countries exactly? Because with the exception of the Caribbean countries people of African origins do not constitute more than 15-20% in any of the other countries based on census data. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would still be preferable, in my opinion. If the article content does not support it, then the net effect is still to containerize the category, but without restricting the option of articles being added in the future. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you already !vote above? Anyway the argument that these countries have a "vast majoirty" of African descent population has already been debunked as well by taking a quick look at anyone of these countries cencus data. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In many of these countries there is a black (or mixed race) majority. Immigration (by force - as slaves) was 200-300 years ago. Without detailed research it will not be possible to determine the origin of most people; and often the records probably do not exist, even as to which slaving port they were embarked from, let alone their tribe of origin. Furthermore we are now perhaps 8 generations away from that time, a stage at which an individual will have about 250 ancestors. Their descent from any one of these will be utterly NN. Descent categories are potentially useful within few generations of arrival, particularly where a community has remained separate from the majority, but not otherwise. I would not oppose containerisation. The question is however is whether any generalised "African" categories should be allowed to have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2019 (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:Afrotropic ecozone biota

[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. A majority of participants supported renaming, but no reason was offered to counter the objection by Black Falcon that this would make the nominated category inconsistent with the sibling cats of Category:Biota by biogeographic realm (and, I see, with the parent Category:Afrotropic ecozone). Since WP:CONSISTENCY is part of WP:AT (and thus of WP:Category_names#General_conventions, which says Standard article naming conventions apply), I count this objection to be well-founded in policy, and hence determining despite being a lone voice.
There is clearly support for the principle renaming from "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm", so a group nomination with included all relevant categories would likely have a different outcome. Pinging the nominator DexDor, who may wish to make such a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reason: (1) To match the article (Afrotropic ecozone redirects to Afrotropical realm), (2) Consistency of category name structure with other species-by-region categories (e.g. Category:Biota of Africa). Alternatives (e.g. Category:Biota of the Afrotropic ecozone) could also be considered (personally I think "ecozone" is clearer than "realm").
Note: The category was originally named "Afrotropic biota"; the "ecozone" was inserted by CFDS.
Note: Any changes resulting from this CFD should also be made (e.g. by a subsequent CFD/CFDS) to other categories (e.g. the fauna/flora subcats). DexDor (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (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:Thiomersal controversy

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Thiomersal controversy

Category:MMR vaccine controversy

[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. This was a close call, and if the title of the head article was more certain, I would probably have closed this as rename. But the page currently titled MMR vaccine and autism has a lengthy recent history of page moves not based on a WP:RM discussion, and Talk:MMR vaccine and autism is forest of unclosed or inclusive formal and informal discussion on the page's title.

It is astonishing that the nominator here (User:JzG, aka "Guy") did not disclose in the nomination that the page was moved[6] to its current title by Guy only two days before this nomination. It is also astonishing that Guy did not disclose that this was done without a formal RM discussion, and that Guy later reverted[7] another editor's move as Non-consensus page move.

As an admin, JZG should know way better than to treat page titles in this way. He should know not to act as if he was an RM closer when he had been a vocal partisan in the discussion. He should know to disclose his prior role when making this CFD nomination.

If and when the two warring ideological factions in this dispute can bring themselves to drop the mutual and habitual WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct to a proper, formal WP:RM discussion which is closed by an independent admin rather than than short-circuited by a partisan ... then a new CFD nomination might fare differently. But what are the chances of good conduct in this topic area? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, recently renamed as the word "controversy" is WP:UNDUE in context. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting, though, the close to universal opposition to "controversy". Guy (Help!) 09:10, 6 February 2019 (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:Wildlife diseases

[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't make clear whether it's for articles about diseases that are only hosted by wild animals or whether it's intended to include diseases hosted by farm animals, pets, humans etc. If the former then most/all of the current contents should be removed (e.g. Giardiasis can be spread by humans) and it would be hard to define the category (e.g. once a disease is observed in a zoo would it need to be removed?).  If the latter then most of the hundreds of articles in Category:Animal diseases would  belong in this category.  All the other subcats of Category:Animal diseases by host are for specific types of animals (fish, birds etc) and that seems a better (e.g. more defining) way to categorize.  Other problems include that the name of the category doesn't make clear that it's specifically for animals (plants are also sometimes considered to be wildlife). DexDor (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2019 (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.
[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) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are timelines of healthcare, not health Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2019 (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:New Century Foundation

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. New Century Foundation is a very small operation, and there is little prospect of any great increase in the number of articles beyond the current four (including the parent article). Guy (Help!) 09:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are not even discussed in the main article, so clearly a long way off ready. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_5&oldid=1251588754"