Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Aboriginal communities in Western Australia by region[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. bibliomaniac15 07:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the name of the parent (region) category. Of course the parent (region) categories themselves don't have consistent names, so perhaps we should consider renaming those parents first/also. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2022 (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:Horner Avenue[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: speedy delete per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)----[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by new editor to be added to a stub with the same name. This is a potential article subject (which is up for AfD), not a category of multiple article subjects. Singularity42 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, single or zero item category.--Mvqr (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previously contained one article which presumably will be deleted. Absolutely useless for categorization. --Kinu t/c 18:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:C1, only article has been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 4 February 2022 (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:Evans Avenue[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: speedy deleted per G3; see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wiokipedia_and_WP:CIR. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by new editor to be added to a stub with the same name. This is a potential article subject (which is up for AfD), not a category of multiple article subjects.. Singularity42 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, single or zero item category.--Mvqr (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previously contained one article which presumably will be deleted. Absolutely useless for categorization. --Kinu t/c 18:04, 3 February 2022 (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:Cryptocurrencies[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 10:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: User:Munmula recently split off individual cryptocurrencies into the newly created Category:Cryptocurrency projects‎, with the apparent intention of having the parent become a topic category covering the broader subject. "Cryptocurrency projects" reads awkwardly and is a bit confusing, though. The usual way of doing things would be to have the parent topic category in singular form, and the set category for individual cryptocurrencies in plural. Paul_012 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider: Some of them are not exactly cryptocurrencies, but platforms (like Ethereum) or tokens (like Shiba Inu (cryptocurrency)), so "cryptocurrency projects" is a broader term that encompasses all of them. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 18:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — A better alternative would be to holistically undertake a reorg of the topic categorization structure(s) by taking an informed account of the differences between blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and tokens into the equation. What I mean is, it doesn't seem like many of those who gradually built up this category structure really understood the meanings or nuances of certain concepts fully (as is generally the case for a lot of uninformed editors "cleaning up" sanctioned crypto topics on WP recently, but I digress).

    Ruminating over "cryptocurrencies" vs "cryptocurrency platforms" vs "cryptocurrency projects" is only going to lead to greater spaghettification, IMHO.

    HiddenLemon // talk 02:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears the parent category is Category:Digital currencies. Whatever restructuring you decide upon should take that in mind. You may also want to review the navbox {{Cryptocurrencies}}. The final structure should be clearly defined and not hinged on having end users understand nuanced distinctions between minor variations of a category name, i.e., between Category:Cryptocurrency and Category:Cryptocurrencies, which is what I think the proposal is. I am certainly not a subject matter expert, but I suspect that blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and tokens may fit under Category:Digital currencies. Someone who truly understands the nuances of the subject should carefully lay out a clear and solid framework before things get further lost in cryptic category names. I support the idea of renaming, but not as currently proposed as it seems more confusing, IMHO. PoundTales (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking another look at this, I think I finally realized the distinction that is trying to be made here: cryptocurrency technology and/or industry in general, versus individual cryptocurrencies specifically (Bitcoin, etc.) I am really out of my expertise here, but I think you should have something like "cryptocurrency technology" or "cryptocurrency industry" or whatever on the one hand, and "Cryptocurrencies" on the other, both hanging off of digital currency. As for platforms, that would be a subcategory of the technology/industry. The point is to structure and name things so that someone who is not familiar with cryptocurrency can follow the structure and understand the distinctions being made. That said, I think I'm on board with the second part (Cryptocurrency projects->Cryptocurrencies), with the provision that things that are not actual currencies (platforms, etc.) be spun off into an appropriate subcategory (such as "Cryptocurrency platforms"), off of the main category. I think the question at this point is what do we name the main category? Cryptocurrency (singular) is too close to Cryptocurrencies to make a clear distinction. "Cryptocurrency technology" or "cryptocurrency systems" or "cryptocurrency industry" ... something along these lines would be more clear. I'm sorry I'm not enough of an expert to recommend a precise name that carries the right nuance you're looking for, but I think this should point you in a better direction. PoundTales (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Cryptocurrency projects to Category:Cryptocurrencies and treat it as a mixed topic and set category. While in other topic areas we do have separate set and topic categories with almost the same category name, this is less applicable here since there are set items that aren't exactly a cryptocurrency. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- If anything this needs splitting between categories about features of Cryptocurrencies and "Cryptocurrency technology" or "cryptocurrency systems" or "cryptocurrency industry" (as suggested). The presnet category is an utter jumble. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (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:Firmicutes stubs[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:Bacillota stubs. bibliomaniac15 07:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Firmicutes") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Bacillota).[1]. The stub category name should reflect this nomenclatural update.</nowiki>. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2022 (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:Firmicutes[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:Bacillota. bibliomaniac15 07:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Firmicutes") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Bacillota).[2] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2022 (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:United States Navy Alabama-related ships[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. bibliomaniac15 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The issue with these is that they aren't really defining categories. These categories are a collection of ships named after the location, named after locations in the city, and named after people from the state. There's no real connection between the ships based on this. For instance, looking in the Louisiana category, there's no real connection at all between USS Errol (AG-133) and USS New Orleans (CA-32) and USS Beverly W. Reid. Ship names are the sort of thing that get SIA/dab pages, not categories, because there's no real connection between ships whose names happen to be related to a specific place. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • absolutely delete all - frivolous categories. I have already deleted one Alabama ship from "Alabama Navy" (or smth.) category. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a variant case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments, particularly SHAREDNAME. More narrowly defined categories to replace some of these may be useful, for example "Ships named after U.S. States" (I will leave that to editors more focused on ships to decide), but as defined these are way too broad to make sense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad and even ships named after the same state [not some random part of it] happen to usually be nothing more than concidence, so this should be dealt with using some other more appropriate methods (including possibly a very much narrower category, or the already existing disambig and list pages). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SHAREDNAME or the origin of names is not a legitimate basis for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are handy references to historians, I was just looking up the record of US Navy ships named for Houston this morning. Next week I could be looking for French naval ships named "Rubis" or British ships named "Ajax". Some navies memorialize ships by keeping the name alive... how about we respect that tradition for once, instead of giving into today's fit of mob iconoclasm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F83C:E900:F04C:4D8:1413:EE9A (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (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:Totalitarian rulers[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not very well defined category. While some governments are traditionally called totalitarian, in many cases it is difficult to spit the hair. For example into this category someone included Hirohito, enough said. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2022 (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:Neo-Nazism in India[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. – Fayenatic London 17:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two pages, Sulli Deals and Bulli Bai case, have used this category. Its usage at Sulli Deals is misleading since no sources make the connection. Whereas only one article from contributor (not staff) from Vice.com has alleged a tenuous and dubious connection by writing "Police linked the suspected auction creators to a neo-Nazi-inspired alt-right group".[3] The category should be deleted for lacking any meaningful context and even if there was a meaning, still, WP:SMALLCAT applies. 27.57.181.26 (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete misuse of the term. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many reliable sources linking the two. Quint The nominator seems to be not aware of use of categories and is confusing with Article. --Venkat TL (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL is the creator of this category[reply]
The problem with you is that you don't understand its meaning. The source itself speaks of nothing more than a small online community of anonymous trolls. That does not serve the purpose for a definitive 'Neo-Nazism' in India, an ideology that is "seek to employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities (which include antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state". That is not possible in India. To give you a stronger example, look at Nation of Islam which has praised Hitler and aligned with neo-nazi movements, but no one would categorize them as 'neo-nazi'. 27.57.181.26 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Venkat TL. There appear to be reliable sources discussing the matter. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Few 8chan trad users do not define the existence of a 'neo-nazism in India'. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a defining characteristic of the only article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: please allow at least 4 days extra for this discussion, as I closed it early by mistake, and have only just realised this and reopened it. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marcocapelle, The categories do not need to be "defining characteristics" of an article to exist as a category. If there are reliable sources referring to the event and the group by that name then It is justified to have the category with that name. Take Savitri Devi for example. She already has categories like Neo Nazism in UK, Neo Nazism in France, Neo Nazism in Greece, I have added This category to that article as well. There are many articles that can be added to this category. It has at least 2 articles, and the category should be kept. It seems to me that some folks above are being in denial about the term. In any case there are enough references to start an article on this topic. And certainly more than enough to have a category to hold related topics.
    • Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. "Germany's India envoy visits 'Nazi-inspired' Hindu group | DW | 21.07.2019". DW.COM. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • Casolari, Marzia (2000). "Hindutva's Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (4): 218–228. ISSN 0012-9976. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
    • Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (July 2003). Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3155-0. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
    • Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (October 2000). Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3111-6. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
    • "Hindu Nationalist's Historical Links to Nazism and Fascism". International Business Times. 6 March 2012.
    • Chaudhury, Aadita. "Why white supremacists and Hindu nationalists are so alike". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • "Hitler's Hindus: The Rise and Rise of India's Nazi-loving Nationalists". Haaretz. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • "Nazism and Hindu Nationalism". The Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • "Savitri Devi: The mystical fascist being resurrected by the alt-right". BBC News. 28 October 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NYU Press, 2000.
    • "Hindus, Sikhs should not be delusional about alliances with neo-Nazis". Hindustan Times. 25 November 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
    • Venkat TL (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The primary reason for nomination 10 days ago was, the category lacked articles, and defining article was missing. Since the nomination, more articles have been included and a defining article has been created. So the category should not be deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The defining article is listed for deletion as well, and has garnered strong support for deletion. See here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles aren't actually examples of Neo-Nazism in India. This is a violation of WP:DEFINING --पदाति (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the main article is kept (hypothetically) it is still not a defining characteristic of the other two articles in the category, the topic article is about is anti-Muslim violence (not neo-Nazism per se) and the biography has almost nothing to do with India. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The defining article for this category has also been deleted. The articles left in the category don't have anything to do with 'Neo-Nazism in India'. The Bulli Bai case article doesn't belong there since the online trolls [called 'trads' (a fringe group within the Indian rightwing)] responsible for the incident were allegedly inspired by neo-nazis from the west but weren't neo-nazis themselves. The Savitri Devi article also doesn't belong there since she wasn't an Indian citizen, and most, if not all, of her neo-nazi activity, took place in/were targeted at the west. Her conversion to Hindusim, involvement in espionage against the Allies and short periods of stay in India don't change these facts. Rockcodder (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only two articles in the category and both seems to have no apparent connection with "Neo-Nazism in India", if it even exist in the first place, the main article about the topic has also been deleted recently, there doesn't seem have to be any reason to keep this category. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2022 (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:Invasive agricultural pests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Category:Invasive agricultural pests

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_2&oldid=1076294304"