Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22[edit]

LGBT people by nationality[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with all other categories of People by nationality, in which the adjective is used. A recent CFD to resolve inconsistencies for LGBT poets was closed in this direction. Years ago a CFD for LGBT military personnel was closed the same way. However, as far as I could find, this hierarchy has never been considered as a whole. This CFD is intended as a sample nomination with sufficient weight for the subcats and siblings within LGBT people by nationality to be renamed speedily afterwards. Note that the sub-cats of Category:LGBT actors from the United States for bisexual, gay etc, already use "American"; and within "writers", novelists as well as poets already use "American". – Fayenatic London 20:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per convention throughout Category:People by nationality. Oculi (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the LGBT tree is the only one with a deviating format as far as I know. In advance, good luck with (speedy-)nominating all subcategories, it will become quite some work to prepare that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've long wanted to put this forward, but I've always been daunted by the sheer size of the job that would be required. The format of these should indeed be consistent with other similar categories, as proposed. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a "by state" tree structure, not a "by nationality" tree structure. Plus it uses demonyms which I detest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the basis for claiming that there's a meaningful distinction between "by state" and "by nationality" that would be relevant here? I mean, I get that we do things like Category:Lakes of Canada and Category:Companies of the United States, rather than "Canadian lakes" or "American companies", on the grounds that inanimate objects or organizations are located in countries rather than being nationals of those countries — but the contents here are people, not inanimate objects or organizations, so how does a category for people fall on the "state" side of a "state vs. nationality" distinction? Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people who were born on the island of Ireland, or even in Northern Ireland who would not self-identify as Irish. There were many orthodox bishops born in the Ottoman Empire who would self-identify as Greek, not as Turkish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people can just not be added to categories that don't fit their national identifications. What's important and defining in conjunction with LGBTQness is the person's nationality, not their technical geographic birthplace — so a person who was physically born in Ireland but wouldn't for whatever reason be considered Irish by nationality simply shouldn't be added to Category:Irish LGBT people, and a person born in the Ottoman Empire who self-identifies as Greek rather than Turkish simply should be catted as Greek instead of Turkish, because the physical location of their birth isn't even remotely as relevant in conjunction with their sexual orientation as their national self-identification is. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. But what if you want to see all people born on the island of Ireland, irrespective of whether they regard themselves as Irish or as British? What if you want to see all orthodox bishops born in the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of whether they regard themselves as Greek or as Turk? That's where a "by state" tree structure comes in handy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category system's job is to group topics by their defining characteristics, not by every possible intersection of characteristics that we think somebody might want to see. So if "all LGBT people born on the island of Ireland regardless of whether they would be considered Irish or British by nationality" isn't a defining characteristic in the first place, but "LGBT people of Irish nationality" is, then the category system's job is to curate #2 and not #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: has introduced a sleight-of-hand. Let's see what he actually wrote. The sets are: (1) LGBT people born on the island of Ireland regardless of whether they would self-identify as Irish by nationality; (2) LGBT people who self-identify as Irish nationals regardless of whether they were born on the island of Ireland. Who's to say that (2) is defining and worthy of "curation" while (1) is not defining and not worthy of "curation"? The debate is being artificially steered in an either /or direction; I believe that the correct solution is "both". While this will introduce quite a lot of overlap in the case of some individuals, what's a few extra bytes between friends? It's better than calling Michael Collins "British" just because he was born in the UK. Not that he's LGBT to my knowledge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced nothing of the sort. All of our categories for people-by-characteristic are curated on the basis of nationality rather than technical birthplace — we do "Irish writers" for writers who are Irish by nationality; we have no category at all for "writers who are of other nationalities but happen to have been technically born in Ireland". We do "Romanian film directors" for film directors who are Romanian by nationality; we have no category at all for "film directors who happen to have been born in Romania but are not Romanian by nationality". And on and so forth. That's not "sleight of hand", it's just the standard, consensus-backed way that we always do categories for people — so why would LGBT-people categories have any unique needs in this regard that our other people by nationality categories don't have? Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 29 October 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.

Wikipedians interested in tennis 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: delete/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only three leaf categories in this entire tree; collapse to parents per WP:SMALLCAT * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 22 October 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:Wikipedians interested in researching history[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 16:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same - the userbox populating the former category does not talk specifically about researching history. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 22 October 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:Gladiators (UK TV series)[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 16:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created as a copy/paste of Category:Gladiators (1992 British TV series), violating CFD process. Also, the name Gladiators (UK TV series) is ambiguous, as there are 2 UK shows with this name, so should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at present it is an empty redirect. Oculi (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator populated it and then got reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is further action needed? Oculi (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let Speedy Delete Happen We can recreate/rename if and when the changes proposed below are realized at the article level. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am currently in the process of combining Gladiators (1992 British TV series) and Gladiators (2008 British TV series) into one article (to be titled Gladiators (UK TV series)) as they are not two separate shows but one show that was revived (and will be again next year). As per Big Brother (British TV series), which has also been revived on two different TV channels, the article should cover all series within one article and not treat them as separate TV shows. A broader category of titled 'Gladiators (UK TV series)' should be used rather than a more niche one only for the 1992-2000 series. As an aside, the articles covering Gladiators on Wikipedia are terrible and seem to have been written in great detail, completely unsourced, by a very dedicated fan. I am trying to improve them all but it will take time and I will need to be able to undo illogical and biased decisions made by someone perhaps too close to the subject to be objective. Eastendersgeek (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case you should first sort out the article (eg by a requested move/merge rather than unilaterally) and then rename the category by the approved methods, eg speedily using WP:C2D. Oculi (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, get a consensus to do that before unilaterally changing everything. I suggest listing tge articles for merging. If the articles are merged, then the categories can be merged after. But right now, there is no consensus for this category to exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I think I’ll just leave it. I don’t have the time or inclination to jump through Wikipedia hoops. So much for “be bold” - at every turn there is common-sense-less bureaucracy standing in the way. I’ll leave the articles in the horrible state they’re in and let someone else sort them out (or not). Eastendersgeek (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Eastendersgeek: it's up to you, but please understand that this is a collaborative website, not a solo project. It may seem tiresome, but there are benefits to doing things the slightly-longer-way. More heads are better than one, as other editors might spot knock-on implications that you have not thought about. On the positive side, once your merger proposal is documented and then formally approved, you can link back to it in case anyone ever challenges your follow-up work. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 22 October 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:Boxers[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:Boxers (sport). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After this move, this seems plausible by a WP:C2D-style argument. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there was a formal WP:RM right here at the article level and we should reflect that same naming here to ease navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Generally I would support renamings for consistency, but the page Boxer (boxing) is only a redirect to the article Boxing rather than a lead article. Generally I would also support clearer disambiguation of categories than articles. However, even though the page Boxer is now a disambiguation page, there is no ambiguity over Category:Boxers – it is not going to contain dogs or armoured vehicles. Moreover it has many subcats of boxers by location etc, and I would not want the question of renaming those even to arise. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:30, 22 October 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:Articles containing Aramaic-language text[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. – Fayenatic London 06:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The language link in the template {{lang-arc}} was changed after discussion at Template talk:lang-arc#Change language link to Imperial Aramaic and Module talk:Lang/data#Template-protected edit request on 25 September 2022. The category must follow according to the naming conventions for the corresponding categories. S.K. (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not "Imperial Aramaic", without the year range? That's the name of the target article. If the year range is needed, it needs a dash, not a hyphen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it, the name comes from the IANA language subtag registry. There the name is like given above. If this can reasonably be changed would be a question that probably @Trappist the monk can answer. S.K. (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that. Language category names as disambiguated by IANA (from ISO 639) is the norm for categories associated with Module:Lang. Of the 8000ish active languages listed in Module:Language/data/iana languages, approximately 300 have some sort of parenthetical disambiguation. Of the 2,846 categories associated with Module:lang, approximately 70 are disambiguated. Most of those disambiguations come directly from IANA though there are some that are en.wiki specific (Category:Articles containing Punjabi (Western)-language text‎ for example).
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is since the category is set automatically and only by the template {{lang-arc}}. The category page wasn’t updated immediately for all articles but now the update is finished. There was no manual emptying. S.K. (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the Wikidata item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8266255 currently points to the old page, and would need updating. The simplest way to achieve that, which also preserves page history for attribution, would be to move the old page over the new one. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since it was the second week without objections, I would think this could/should/can be treated according to no objections to the nomination are raised. --S.K. (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The last Module:Lang-related CfD that I participated in was a deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 30 § Category:Redirects from Uyghur-language terms. It too, spent what seems to me an inordinate amount of time at CfD. In that other CfD, Editor Marcocapelle said that, procedurally, a better way to handle categories-filled-by-templates is to [nominate] for renaming. When I asked why, Editor Marcocapelle declined to answer. But, since that editor had suggested that renaming is the better way of handling such cases, renaming is what I suggested to you. In hindsight, I should have just moved the old category to its new name and we would have been done long since.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't replied because nominator User:TartarTorte already agreed before I had the chance to reply. By renaming you preserve the page history, by deleting a category and starting a new one you don't. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 23 October 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:People educated at British public schools[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Category:People educated at British public schools

Category:Scholars of the medieval Islamic world by period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Category:Scholars of the medieval Islamic world by period

Medieval Moroccan Jews[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 16:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one or two articles in each of these categories, while the 14th century is lacking altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is an appropriate upmerge for small categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 23 October 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_October_22&oldid=1119081774"