Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Category:Gay actors[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really find a need in an encyclopedia, to categorize people by their sexual orientation? What bearing does it have on their life as an actor, if they are gay or straight? I am sorry, but I really think that given BLP, this kind of category is a minefield waiting to go bang. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. We specifically allow categorisation by sexual orientation, and the way to change that isn't to list one category by sexual orientation at CfD. Just deleting this would leave us in the absurd situation where we have Category:Lesbian actresses, Category:Bisexual actresses, Category:Bisexual male actors, but not Category:Gay actors. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had I thought to check those, they would have been nominated also. I'd prefer to think "he's a great actor", or whatever, than to say "he's a great gay actor." Labels, labels, labels! Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way you generally think of people isn't necessarily what categorisation is about, though. I'm more likely to think of Ian McKellen as a gay actor than an actor awarded a British knighthood, yet he is still in Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods. If instead of subcategorising actors we just stuck them all in Category:Actors then our categorisation scheme would hardly be very useful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as someone who has spent inordinate amount of time trying to get rid of labeling people by race, ethnicity, religion, etc. around here; I'm afraid we get no traction unless the category ends up being too specific or one the community doesn't like, for example, murderers by race or suicides by religion, even though both those sorts are "notable" (as in WP:N) inasmuch as there's lots of media coverage and data tracked on those subjects. Like anyone seriously thinks of people as Category:African-American players of American football rather than American football players (no hyphens), except at Wikipedia? But, those who like these sorts of categories will flock to defend them... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether we like the fact or not, sexual orientation is a thing that people care about in relation to entertainers — being out as LGBT used to be (and to a lesser but still significant extent still is) a thing that could affect an actor's career (e.g. by interfering with what roles the person might actually be cast in, how much work they actually get, and on and so forth.) Yes, things are thankfully changing now that there are so many more out actors than there used to be, but the work on that score is still far from complete — it's irrelevant to acting in theory, but far from irrelevant in actual on the ground fact. So, whether we like the fact or not, it does constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an actor, because it actually has a significant effect on an actor's career — and there's a lot of reliable source coverage out there about the fact that it still matters, to boot. (See, frex, the incident a few years ago when a journalist claimed that Sean Hayes being openly gay in his personal life somehow broke his ability to credibly perform a non-gay role.) And it's not a "minefield waiting to go bang", either, because per WP:BLPCAT we do not use the category to perform the outing of closeted gay actors — actors only go in here if and when they've personally come out if living, or when reliable sources confirm their sexuality if they're dead. So there are no BLP issues involved, because a person isn't supposed to be in here on the basis of unsourced rumours, but only if and when it's confirmed fact. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the reasons given by Bearcat. Defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2017 (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:Musical families[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. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Show business families to Category:Musical families (currently a soft redirect)
Nominator's rationale: I see that this was merged as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_4#Musical_families. I've been working a bit in the area of Category:Show business families and we do have subcategories such as Category:Acting families, as well as Category:Family musical groups, for families that perform together. I don't believe the nominated category should be a soft redirect to Category:Show business families, but a bona fide category on its own, for there are good number of such families and I don't think they should be lumped in with the too-general "show business." I certainly disagree with the previous merge rational that there is "no such thing as a musical family" (yet, somehow, there are "acting families"?). Moreover, if such families include classical musicians, one may well say that are not in "show business." Are there still objections to populating this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I'd rather go the opposite direction and delete/upmerge Category:Show business families as well. The only type of family where all members can consistently be linked to a sort of occupation is a royal family. Otherwise the categories just contain families that happen to have a good coverage of individual members on Wikipedia. Adding show business or musical in the category name is sometimes useful for disambiguation though. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding a template on the parent category and recasting the nomination to include it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting rid of families by profession categories would by an incredibly poor choice, werther people like it or not most of the families are usually known for one thing, wether it be acting, music, politics or wrestling. This is the most convinient way of keeping track of the articles.★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to who? And why are we intersectiong family name with a profession as if everyone of that name belongs to that profession? This belongs in a list, if anywhere. - jc37 05:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc37, KarasuGamma, RevelationDirect, Oculi, Carlossuarez46, and Peterkingiron: as participants in the previous CFD, you may wish to contribute here. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest target should be Category:Entertainment families which should mainly be a container, but downmerge appropriate cases to Category:Musical families, which obviously includes Mozart and Mendelsson. Some of the people are not musicians. Show Biz is too modern a term to apply to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2017 (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.

Young musical families[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've got two musical families named Young. Trying to figure out the best way to distinguish and I think this is it, based on their descriptions? I'm open to any better suggestions! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the term "musical family" sounds more like a group that performs together, line The von Trapps or The Cowsills. I prefer to keep using "family musicians" and add the location disambiguators. That is, Category:Young family musicians (England) and Category:Young family musicians (Scotland/Australia). WWGB (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Young" certainly should be disambiguated somehow, since it may imply their young age. Brandmeistertalk 12:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter also applies to the alternative rename proposal, so that's why I would prefer to stick to the original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:46, 15 May 2017 (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.

Auteurs[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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to 2017 April 16 where Film auteurs, which was by far the largest part of this hierarchy, was deleted. In closing that, I made List of film auteurs, which is much more amenable to be cited and kept under review. The current members of the video game and music categories are already listed in the main article Auteur, except for Kanye West. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of "auteur" for these artists was an offshoot of the "film auteur" phenomenon, therefore if we are no longer using "film auteur" as a category we shouldn't be using these other two. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2017 (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:Educational technologists[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It appears that these overlapping categories are good candidates for merging, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Biogeographist (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (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.

Organizations based in France[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 as Option B. This is finely balanced but there is a consensus to be consistent one way or the other. In the end I am most persuaded by the usage of the "z" form in English webpages of the French Foreign Office and the French Embassy in London. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organizations" to "Organisations"
Option B - "Organisations" to "Organizations"

Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There have been quite a few of these recently. It would be helpful if the nominator could link to any developing consensus (or lack thereof) rather than issuing each nom as a one-off. Oculi (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling "organization" is widely used in Europe, for example Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and European Organization for Nuclear Research. AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A, which I think also reflects the spelling of the word in French. Even after Brexit EU will continue to use British orthography, because Ireland does. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - would affect the smaller number of cats (since the majority use the "z" spelling currently) and would cause the least disruption. There is no preference for British English for France merely because they are both European; I simply don't think that constitutes strong linguistic ties for certain orthography. Neutralitytalk 04:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A. Note that international organisations based in France, with English names, usually use this spelling. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OECD, Organisation for the Prevention of Blindness, European Organisation for Rare Diseases and World Organisation for Animal Health are four international organisations based in France that use an "s" in the name of the organisation. None use a "z". Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: That doesn't take us any further forward, since those four are the same four that are in the top category. Contrary to your statement about "none", European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and World Federation of Engineering Organizations are the other two out of the six, and those do use the "z" spelling. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True (and surprising to me), though in the latter case it seems to me that the spelling follows from that of the parent organiZation (sic.), UNESCO. I also observe that Interpol uses z-spelling. Now I deliberately did not look at EU-bounded organisations, because my understanding is that the EU as an institution uses s-spelling, though of course it is not a France-based org so in that sense it "doesn't count". I'm not here to block consensus, so if the will of the room is to go with the majority of existing WP categories, that is probably better than the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B – the parent category is Category:Organizations based in France and has been stable since 2006. Editors adding subcats should honour the parent and not muddy the waters by using their own personal preference. Oculi (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because U.S. English - speaking Wikipedians have created most of these "Organizations" (sic.) categories doesn't make it the right decision. 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Before the Americas, there was the "English"-spelling (UK), used throughout Europe. Since, the United States of America, came US-spelling English. So why don't all the countries in the Americas spell it the US-way (except for overseas territories of European countries) and all of Europe the UK-way? At least there will be a formality-involved and can be considered "neutral." Honestly, just declaring one over the other is impossible to determine neutrally. I have often battled with the difficulty of deciding which spelling to use and it has drove me insane. Perhaps this could be the solution. "Orgs" in Europe who may use the US-spelling may just very well be influenced by more Americans or it may just simply be honorary (politically) for the US-usage (we do have the most speakers of the English language). The reason is unknown, but if they are using the US-spelling, they are clearly not honoring the original spelling of European UK. However, I think this shouldn't deter our cats. UNESCO is perfectly fine under "organisations" etc. In French it is "organisation" so it is doubtful they would use the US-spelling more frequently. Please ping me back in a possible response to this. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both A and B have their merits, let's just not leave the situation as inconsistently as it currently is. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (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:History of Roman Catholicism by continent‎[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:History of Catholicism by continent‎, as (if I understand correctly) the nominator consents to using that word to match the contents. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency with Category:Catholic Church, Category:Catholic organizations, Category:Catholic Church by continent, Category:Catholic Church by country, in accordance with Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Proposal also including other equivalent subcategories, including those listed in Category:History of the Catholic Church such as Category:History of Roman Catholicism by country‎ etc., although these could by adapted on a step by step basis. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2017 (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:Australian zoo general managers[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: WP:SOFTDELETE. It could be increased by three from the parent category, but there are no other national sibling categories of zoo directors at the moment. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article, and we can't expect it to grow quickly as there are only 38 articles in the Zoo directors (global) category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2017 (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:Treaties of Muhammad[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 currently has 6 member pages, undermining the rationale of the nomination. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, 2 articles with little chance of expansion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I tagged a couple of articles. There is plenty of room for expansion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2017 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_15&oldid=1074282819"