Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Flora of the Plains-Midwest (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: merge. MER-C 19:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WGSRPD category as is used for geographic distribution of plants at WP:Plants. Area is vaguely and controversially defined. Category is duplicative / overlaps other more frequently used categories. Many of the plants in this category also occur in other parts of the US (and Canada / elsewhere). — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Agree with nom. --Nessie (📥) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (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:Areas of traditional spread of Ukrainians and Ukrainian language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 2#Category:Areas of traditional spread of Ukrainians and Ukrainian language

Category:Climate change skepticism and denial[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. MER-C 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 2015, it was ruled that it was controversial to WP:SPADE "climate change denial". In the last five years, the term of phrase climate change denial has become more-or-less standard while the euphemism "climate change skepticism" has receded into more obscurity. Our main page on the subject is now climate change denial, so our categories should reflect this as such. Note that this is no judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of the position. It is simply a WP:Principle of least astonishment approach to what is normally described in reliable sources. jps (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least delete this and repropose it, spelling it correctly. I came here from a page where "Proposal to rename to Climat change denial" (sic) was in a big red box. 67.187.30.225 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different discussion. This is an existing category. jps (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The effect is the same, the result would be use of a category to label people as deniers, and that's already decided: no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category already has "climate change denial" included in it right now. If you think the category is inappropriately applied to any particular biography, the answer is to look into removing the category from that biography. At issue here is the problem of compounding terms in categories with euphemisms which has historically not been the wiki-way. jps (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more than inappropriate. You could appeal the RfC result, but since the decision was recent I doubt that would work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you understanding what I'm saying? The category is already applied to biographies and it already says, "climate change denial". This discussion has nothing to do with a different RfC about whether a separate category should be deleted. jps (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand matters, you are saying either (a) it's okay to make a "climate change denial" category for BLPs because that's way different from a "climate change deniers" category for BLPs, or (b) it's okay to overturn the October 2019 RfC, and overturn the October 2015 RfC which said the category should be deleted. Either way, you would be avoiding WP:BLP and WP:DRV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, nope. I'm not saying either of those things. Not sure why you think that's what I'm saying. jps (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It is shorter and corresponds to Climate change denial and Soft climate change denial (although a different topic) and skepticism is preferred in relation to critical thinking and scientific skepticism, when in this case it is used to mean denial of, (or failing to acknowledge, or to admit) evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 22:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As 'skepticism' more often relates to a skeptic of pseudo-science not settled-science. And the science of climate change is settled, so the term 'denial' alone is the most suitable definition. CatCafe (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the proposed name is more concise and more accurate. As stated above, this phenomenon is properly termed denial, and is the opposite of what the skeptical movement stands for. With regard to biographies, agreed with jps on that matter. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - There has been a time when there was legitimate skepticism, right? I am neither a historian of science nor a climatologist, but I guess that was the case fifty years ago. Then the climate change skeptics went extinct - by dying, getting convinced by the evidence, or falling into denial. But back then, they were climate change skeptics. Are there any entries in the category that fall into that, well, category, in a way that can be sourced? Enough of them to justify another category just for them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with something like this, but it's hard to know who would self-identify as a "climate denial activist". If there are high-quality sources that so-identify them, however, that should be good enough for us. This would be something we should discuss elsewhere, however so as to not railroad this discussion (and I agree that the RfC referenced above is relevant to such a discussion). jps (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category contains about 170 biographies (more or less, just a quick scan). My guess is that zero are climate denial activists. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, creation of the subcategory was meant to be optional. In any case the biographies do not belong in the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it's up to the supporters to remove them all, and then it might make sense to start this discussion again. Peter Gulutzan (talk)
  • Objection - The phrase Climate change denial equates it with Holocaust denial, which is a criminal offence in many countries. As long as Climate change denial isn't a crime under law it should not be equated with it. No country in the world has passed laws criminalizing Climate change denial as of yet, even though there have been some proposals to do that in the past. Someone Not Awful (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every denial is a crime, the equation with Holocaust denial does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is no meaningful difference between "skepticism" and "denial" in this specific case (see also "Evolution skepticism and denial" -- they are the same thing in that case too).--Calthinus (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Accurate and more concise. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (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:DC Extended Universe singles[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. MER-C 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow conventions of such categories as Category:Batman music and Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe music. It can then also serve as parent to Category:DC Extended Universe soundtracks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:52, 20 January 2020 (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:Kourosh Yaghmaei[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 28#Category:Kourosh Yaghmaei

Category:High Commissioners of Bangladesh to Ireland[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. MER-C 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth and left decades before Bangladesh became independent. It has never received High Commissioners from Bangladesh. 51.37.166.171 (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "ambassdors" to "ambassadors" in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This must be technically correct. The more recent holder of the office is also described as having been High Commission to Thailand and Cambodia previously (surely also incorrect). The difficulty is almost certainly that the Chancellery is in London, where he/she is High Commissioner, but is (without an office there) also the ambassador to Ireland and (in the present case) Liberia. That article needs editing to correct this. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Wrong terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (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:Cthulhu Mythos symbols[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 2#Category:Cthulhu Mythos symbols

Category:People who compete in parasports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 2#Category:People who compete in parasports

Category:Areas of computer science[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. MER-C 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, none of the siblings in Category:Subfields by academic discipline uses "areas", while "subfields" is the most frequently occurring alternative. An earlier speedy renaming request was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
discussion at CFDS
  • Category:Areas of computer science to Category:Subfields of computer science – C2C: Both the parent, Category:Subfields by academic discipline, and nearly half of the other subcats use "Subfields". (The rest are a hodgepodge of different words, such as Fields, Branches, Subdisciplines, etc.) NONE of them use "Areas". Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "The rest are a hodgepodge of different words" = no clear convention in the category, so oppose speedy. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was proposing to rename ALL of the other subcats to "Subfields" I would entirely agree with you - THAT would indeed require a fullblown CFD. But please note that this subcat is a very lonely outlier: the ONLY one that uses "Areas", and also the only one I'm trying to rename. Given that "Subfields" stands head & shoulders above the rest of the subcats and is also used in the parent category, it seems to me that Speedy can be allowed for this single category, just to get it out of the way. Anomalous+0 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:15, 20 January 2020 (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:Hostage dramas[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 manually. MER-C 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: option A: merge to Category:Films about hostage takings; option B: rename to Category:Hostage drama films and make this a subcategory of Category:Films about hostage takings. All entries in this category are films and the 'drama' aspect is not a very defining distinction within the hostage film topic category. An earlier speedy merge request was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Option A Drama is not a defining genre. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this category contains films, plays, and television episodes. You might arguably rename to "Works about hostage takings" (or better, the less clumsy "Works about hostage situations"), with the films category made into a subcat, but a simple merger is inappropriate. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:15, 20 January 2020 (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:Health and social care trusts[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. MER-C 19:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Less ambiguous. We have had health and social care trusts in England (though not many, and they didnt have their own category, as far as I know) and we may well have them again. Rathfelder (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this makes perfect sense if there have also been English health and social care trusts (which I have not checked though). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It is clearer for these to9 be specified as NI. At present in England Social Care is the responsibility of Shire Counties and unitary councils, whereas health is the responsibility of NHS Trusts, but that may change. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with  Question: I'm surprised we only have Northern Ireland health and social care trusts articles. This makes me think these are inappropriately categorized relative to our existing hierarchy. Marcocapelle or nom, is it possible we have a similar, synonymous category, possibly even subdivided by geography, and these articles could be moved there and this category speedily deleted? --Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle Ah, okay, yeah that's very high-level, so, if there's no other synonymous category to this one that doesn't use the word trusts or something, then I'm wondering why we even need to sub-arrange "Health and social care trusts" by geography? Why not just keep them where they are and add in other countries' health and social care trusts (or similar) as we find them? As demand warrants, we could then create sub-categories of this one for each national jurisdiction. So, I guess call this a reluctant support; prefer keep but, in either case, make the category (whatever it's named) a sub-category of Category:Publicly funded health care. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:50, 26 January 2020 (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:Sustainable fisheries[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 as nominated. MER-C 19:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the scope of the two categories is largely overlapping. The parent categories of both existing categories should be kept in the merged category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as nom not reverse. With one exception (law centre), all appear to be fisheries management (or regulatory) organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2020 (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:Seafood red list[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. MER-C 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, without objection to listification. The fact that the existence of this seafood is in danger is important, but it is not defining for any specific species. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In many cases the article doesn't mention the status (e.g. Marlin or Haddock) or the status only applies to some of the species covered by the article (e.g. Eel or Tuna). DexDor (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (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:Middle-earth wizards[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: do not merge. MER-C 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest that we consolidate these small categories. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I've never read the Silmarillion, so maybe there's something in there that specifies this, but I don't believe the ME wizards like Gandalf are ever equated to deities (angels is the better comp I've heard). Similarly, Balrog is in the category Category:Middle-earth Maiar, and Balrogs are equated more to demons (I think Gandalf even refers to Balrogs as demons at some point, although I may be wrong on that). Angels and demons are generally not considered to be deities. Hog Farm (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, these are of some value in navigation, complementing Template:Ainur. No objection to the alternative suggestion of nominating Category:Middle-earth deities for renaming to Category:Middle-earth Ainur. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The wizards had supernatural powers, but they did not receive worship. We have the problem that there are only three articles (and some redirects), with no prospect of more. However, there is no obvious merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - And I note that the proposed target is a relatively new creation (2018). If anything, it (Category:Middle-earth deities) should be deleted. - jc37 20:28, 25 January 2020 (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:Middle-earth Orcs[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. MER-C 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no point in preserving a small category that has no potential for growth. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Orcs and the Uruk-Hai, the only articles in the category, would fit in well at Category:Middle-earth races. Hog Farm (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- No scope for growth. We might get articles on a couple of individual orcs, but there will never be much. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2020 (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:Businesspeople from Enid, Oklahoma[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: do not merge. MER-C 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small (5 entries) and overly specific. We don't need businesspeople from every American city pbp 04:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll make that change. pbp 14:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale in creating this category was that People from Enid, Oklahoma was originally overpopulated in general, and to organize the myriad of listings into smaller subcategories. While I’d prefer no merging or deletion occur, I would suggest if you delete the category that these pages be added to both Businesspeople from Oklahoma and People from Enid, Oklahoma, so as not to lose relevance of either the location or the occupation in classification. --Kiddo27 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_21#Category:American_expatriate_soccer_players_in_Germany We should not merge categories if it will clutter articles with extra categories. ミラP 22:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have relocated your brackets so that it is clear what you are referring to. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am surprised that we need a category of this kind for a town of nearly 50,000 people, but we have the 5 articles considered to be the minimum for a category. I do not consider that the argument by the previous contributor is valid: there is much precedent for upmerging small categories, such as this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2020 (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:Businesspeople from Vancouver, Washington[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 8#Category:Businesspeople from Vancouver, Washington

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_20&oldid=939732241"