Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

November 13[edit]

Category:Mid-air collisions in Africa[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough entries to support an Africa subcategory, or to warrant subdividing by country or continent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 13 November 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:Sportsmen by century[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#Category:Sportsmen by century

Category:Africa Movie Academy Award templates[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 15 of them have a single page. If all 17 are upmerged to Category:Africa Movie Academy Award templates then it would still only have 25 pages. None of the subcategories have other parent categories except Category:Template:Template category with no topic or description and Category:Wikipedia template categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 13 November 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:RTBF original programming[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: La Une, Tipik and La Trois are in the same entity (RTBF); this should be merged into this "parent category". Saisønisse (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Differnt channels, different cateogries. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories like this are organized at the level of the specific channel, not at the level of the channels' owner — if a company owns three channels that provide distinct programming from each other, then that means three separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 21 November 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:VRT (broadcaster) original programming[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eén, Canvas and Ketnet are in the same entity (VRT); this should be merged into this "parent category". Saisønisse (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Differnt channels, different cateogries. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories like this are organized at the level of the specific channel, not at the level of the channels' owner — if a company owns three channels that provide distinct programming from each other, then that means three separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 21 November 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:Netherlands Public Broadcasting original programming[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#Category:Netherlands Public Broadcasting original programming

Category:Tumblr[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: purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very few articles with strong links to Tumblr. Only Tumblr, DashCon, and its founder David Karp are strongly linked (arguably its CTO Marco Arment), but the other articles in the category are linked tenuously at best. Ultimately it just isn't a useful category. WPscatter t/c 18:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge or delete, a number of articles clearly do not belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purge or delete per Marcocapelle. Most of these don't belong. What's left is a WP:NARROWCAT but maybe it matter that Tumblr is/was fairly notable. Jontesta (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, per the arguments above. I don't think deleting is a good idea per Jontesta and since articles on subjects closely related to Tumblr can still be created. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  09:09, 14 November 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:Poets of the early Islamic period[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Early Islamic period" is ambiguous. I think the original intention was to capture 7th-century poets (muslim or non) who interacted with the Prophet Muhammad. Rename to Category:Poets from/of Muhammad's era, or Category:Poets associated with Muhammad. Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposed renaming seems overly specific and awkwardly named, and does not encompass the full scope of articles in the category. "Early Islamic period" appears to be a fairly frequently used term, although if consensus is that it is overly vague, perhaps it would be better replaced with some sort of time interval ("Islamic poets before X century" or similar) instead of limiting the category to the Muhammad association. 193.37.240.128 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While "early Islamic period" might be a common term, it has no clear definition and has completely different meanings to different authors, even on Wikipedia. For example, the Early Muslim conquests article spans 130 years from Muhammad's time to the Umayyad era. Whereas Early Islamic philosophy refers to Islamic philosophy from the Abbasids up until the 18th century (in other words, "early" here means "pre-modern" and does not even include Muhammad's time, Rashidun or Umayyad). The Category:Poets of the early Islamic period in question was tagged with "7th-century poets", but previously contained Category:Poets of the Abbasid Caliphate and Category:Poets of the Fatimid Caliphate, which I unlinked recently as it didn't make any sense to have them under "early Islamic period".
The nominated category is tagged under "7th-century poets" and all the poets under the category were associated with Muhammad one way or another. Whether praising him or attacking him in their poetry. So it makes perfect sense to have the category named after Muhammad's era. Anyone else belonging in this vague "early" era can be listed under Category:Pre-Islamic Arabian poets, Category:7th-century Arabic poets, Category:Poets from the Umayyad Caliphate, or even Category:Poets from the Rashidun Caliphate. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asma bint Marwan was not Muslim. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Al-Andalus: what do you think of the merge alternative? Or phrased in reverse: is it really necessary to split early 7th-century poets from late 7th-century poets? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 16 November 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:Companies' terms of service[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If there were an actual article on Google's terms of service, this would of course be useful to categorize it. As it stands, though, it contains articles not specifically about terms of service and is a non-defining hodgepodge. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category does include articles specifically about terms of service such as CIV, National Rail Conditions of Travel, comparisons of licenses and services, index of articles related to TOS. It also includes articles which cover terms of service along with their other content, such as Comodo Dragon, Malarebytes. If someone finds articles which have no content about terms of service, because they were mis-categorized, or their relevant content has been removed, they can be taken out of the category. That's not a reason to drop the category, which can be useful for people looking at the state of the art and range of practices in terms of service. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 13 November 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.

Businesspeople by ethnicity[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, trivial intersections between ethnicity and occupation, see also WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many people including Hazaras from ethnics other than Pashtuns/Afghans do not accept Afghan as their identity (see for example 1, 2). Also, There are many Hazaras, born, and living outside, and having citizenship of other Worldresident (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Arab item is mainly a container. Hazara are a persecuted minority in Afghanistan. Ethnic Armenians are likely to be the descendants of survivors of the WWI genocide of this Christian minority in the Ottoman Empire with no connection to the present republic of Armenia (formerly Russian Armenia). Much of the Chinese diaspora of southeast Asia are of Hokkien male descent, often through mariage to a Malay or other local. I do not know about the Nigerian cases, but in a country of that size ethnicity is likely to be significnat. These are not trivial intersections. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep Hazara businesspeople category. The ethnic tension within Afghanistan is very hot and rather than identifying as an Afghan the people of Afghanistan identify as Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks and so on. The term Afghan, even though internationally referred to as citizens of Afghanistan, however, in Afghanistan Afghans means Pashtuns and it has been documented well throughout the history (see Pashtuns article for details). From political parties to businesses revolve around ethnicity in Afghanistan. From the National Anthem of Afghanistan which names each ethnic group to regions of Afghanistan that are densely populated by a single ethnic group. Also, merging this category means we will have to merge other categories that are of a particular ethnic group of Afghanistan? For instance, Massacres of Hazara people should be renamed to Massacres of Afghans? But the victim of these massacres have been one particular ethnic group of Afghanistan targeted by another ethnic group of Afghanistan. So I recommend keeping the category as is.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 13 November 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:Editor's pronouns templates[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article Personal pronoun.
The word templates in the title means we probably don't need to prepend Wikipedia to the category title, though we can if there is consensus for it, I suppose. See also the contents of Category:Wikipedia templates - some of which do have "Wikipedia", and some of which do not. - jc37 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either proposed target, as nom. - jc37 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous discussion (closed as no consensus by me) is here. Pinging participants @CX Zoom, @Fayenatic london, @Pppery. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer Category:Pronoun selection templates, but agree both suggestions are an improvement over the current name. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have particular opinions except that Category:Personal pronoun templates may cause some confusion due to the existence of Template:Personal pronouns. Agree with Pppery and both his suggestion and the nom's suggestion with "Wikipedia" prefix look good to me. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a category match the name of the primary article (or in this case, template) is a fairly common practice. So I don't imagine there will be any confusion. - jc37 18:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But Template:Personal pronouns is not a member of this category, it is a sidebox to be used in articles. The category consists of templates whose scope is limited to conversation with/about fellow Wikipedians, who have set the gender at their preferences. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pronouns in question are "third person personal pronouns", in fact "third person singular personal pronouns", but we don't want to spell it out in all that detail. In the current cultural context of identity and preferred style for referring to oneself, the one word "pronouns" is all that is commonly used. I don't see any point expanding the category name with "personal".
The templates in the category relate to editors as opposed to pronouns as a topic, so I suggest that the name needs to keep either "editor", "editors' ", "user" or "Wikipedian". I suggested Category:User pronoun templates before, and still find that appropriate.
I have just realised that there is also Category:Pronoun user templates, whose name is similar. However, the phrase "user templates" seems to be widely understood/used as meaning userboxes, so I don't think that any confusion would arise between that other category's name and "user pronoun templates" for the nominated category. Moreover, as Category:Pronoun user templates has been at that name since 2006, IMHO that confirms that there is no need to add "personal".
Failing that, I would prefer Category:Pronoun selection templates to the options in the nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are 8 types of pronouns, of which "personal" is but one. See also [1]. So yes, the name should be some form of the phrase "personal pronouns". And to clarify, I'm fine with "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedian" prepended, if that's the consensus. - jc37 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Fayenatic london. This is primarily about gender identification and just "pronoun" is the commonly used term in that context. With respect to the confusion with Category:Pronoun user templates, it probably is smarter to rename that one and its siblings to "userbox" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Common usage? Not per our article: Pronoun. I understand that editors are using their own experience as to common usage, but grammar actually is a thing : ) - jc37 11:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources just using "pronoun" in the context of gender identification are abundant, this is just the first hit I got: [2]. This example does not concern a reliable source, but I have no doubt there will be reliable sources around too. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:41, 17 November 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:Anti-white racism[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was looking at all of the redirect deletions that were a part of this RFD discussion and one of these "anti-white racism" redirects pointed to this category. I know the guidelines for redirects are different than the guidelines for categories but I thought since all of these associated redirects were deleted, I would at least raise the question here at CFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point of the redirect discussion was that there was no article about the topic yet and that an article should be started asap. That does not seem a good reason to delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 15 November 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.

American men[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, these categories are not meant to contain articles directly in it. Being of a gender is not a defining characteristic of anyone. Yesterday I already added a container template on the category pages but it would be helpful to get some support for that before starting purging, because it involves thousands of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For maintaining the standard. Orientls (talk) 18:14, 14 November 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.

American men by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#American men by occupation

Category:Almohad writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#Category:Almohad writers

Category:The Space Trilogy locations[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. The only article is redundant with the sister category Category:The Space Trilogy books. No realistic possibility of expanding this category. Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 13 November 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.

USL First Division teams[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the USL First Division is now defunct (last season was 2009), there are no current clubs. All teams that participated in the league should be in the same category. BLAIXX 00:05, 13 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_13&oldid=1123076267"