Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Category:Bioscience education[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. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are entirely duplicative of each other. Although it was created more recently than Category:Bioscience education, Category:Biology education is the clear choice:
Just for starters, there's not even an article about "Bioscience", only a redirect to List of life sciences - which doesn't even mention the term anywhere on the page. Moreover, after I adjusted one of its parents -- making Category:Bioscience education a subcat of Category:Biology education -- I was hoping to add Category:Bioscience as the other parent cat. Needless to say, there is no such category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. There should certainly be an article on Bioscience. I have limited knowledge of the various life sciences but isn't biology, like bioengineering and what have you, a subset of bioscience? If so, I think we should keep Category:Bioscience education and merge Category:Biology education into that. Apart from having Category:Bioscience education as a subcat, Category:Biology education only contains three education articles, one of them about an institute which has "Bioscience" in its name, and another small subcat holding two competition articles. I'd like to see what other people think before I comment further. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2021 (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:Alt-right politicians 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: delete. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Categories labeling American politicians as conservative or liberal have been deleted in the past. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Usage is bound to be subjective and the category will inevitably attract those with a POV to push. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Strongly agreed. --User:Florence232 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Any such categorisation, where it is not based on membership of a particular political party is a category dependent on the subjective POV of the editor. We cannot allow such to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2021 (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.

More pre-independence Mexico categories[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. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge per precedent in this previous discussion. @Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, and Rathfelder: pinging contributors to this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As far as possible we should use the names of countries applicable at the time. Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. New Spain is the correct name to 1821. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose' 1. We as Wikipedians do not cooperate here to create category names that produce confusion in the majority of users that are not historians! New Spain is a name detail that refers to those specialists but tends to lock out the 95 % who just know the geographical name Mexico.
2. It's as well a logical disruption. In all those cases that are of economical background we continously hurry up to eliminate the old names to adapt to the most recent marketing driven renamings of companies. In these caces usability rules. I'd say usability for our users should rule mostly. --Just N. (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are history categories and people with a little sense of history will know that Mexico was part of the Spanish colonial empire in this period. Also, I have no idea what marketing has to do with this. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a third reason to oppose and keep the existing. If *history* rules as you say some more care would be required to apply the correct historical names which in this case would be Nueva Espania instead of New Spain. And further on, the above reasons are still unrefuted. --Just N. (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nueva Espania instead of New Spain is a matter of translation rather than a matter of history. As far as I am aware, English-language historiography uses New Spain. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2021 (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:Male musicians[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. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C. Recently categories covering female musicians were renamed and the word female was replaced by the word women. The reasons cited at the time were "general accuracy (noted by Johnpacklambert) and sex and gender distinction (noted by Marcocapelle)". I think these concerns apply to categories covering men as well, and it would make sense to keep the pattern consistent for all similar categories. Though I am not sure whether this makes sense from a linguistic point of view or not. Right now we have Category:Women artists and Category:Male artists; Category:Women writers and Category:Male writers; etc. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the matter. Keivan.fTalk 05:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for linguistic reasons. In common usage, women is often used as an adjective but men is not, illogical as it seems. I have an open mind on this but I think most people prefer male to men as an adjective while accepting women as an alternative to female. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why confine this discussion to musicians? Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree with No Great Shaker. We refer to 'women drivers' but not 'men drivers', 'Women writers' but not 'Men writers'. Oculi (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just worked through sveral thousand articles about musicians. I dont think one of them said the subject was a man musician. Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename: Category:Women musicians to Category:Female musicians. Women is not really an adjective. Meanwhile, there are 1,160,000 and 736,000 Google search results for "female musicians" and "female musician", but 239,000 and 303,000 for "women musicians" and "woman musician". Let's also not forget that some musicians are girls or boys. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 01:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete all (or almost all) occupation by sex categories. It's not defining in my opinion. If I played music and got famous, I would want to be known for my music and not my gender. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. A more useful distinction within musicians (that already exists) is by sopranos, tenors etc. but that does not exactly match with gender either. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sex of singers is far more defining than the sex of most of the occupational categories which we define by sex. Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because what they produce is different. I cant easily tell the sex of a writer, but I can almost always tell the sex of a singer by listening to them. And what they sing is often different. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what we already have sopranos and tenors categories for. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a small proportion of singers are categorised by voice type. I can still tell that Mick Jagger is a bloke and Dolly Parton isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are many underage singers. Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose A lot of objections speak against such a linguistic abuse, see above. Also support Alternate rename: Category:Women musicians to Category:Female musicians. If tolerated artificial shifts are in fact a slippery slope to proposals like this we should set them back! --Just N. (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The context requires an adjective, but "men" is a noun. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its hard to see why some categories use male, some men, some female and some women. But I think this needs wider discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2021 (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/2021_September_23&oldid=1051258351"