Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5
April 7 >

April 6[edit]

Category:Miocene bear dogs[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:Miocene Amphicyonidae. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Miocene amphicyonids, Miocene Amphicyonidae, any similar rename could work, reasons are similar to my reasoning in the "bear dog" category for the amphicyonids in moving away from colloquial name usage not often used in paleontological studies and consistency with the family taxon name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimalMustelid (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be closed the same way as this earlier discussion that it still in progress. Presumably it should be Category:Miocene amphicyonidae though, without capital. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; could have waited till the other discussion closed, but this is the only subcategory. Amphicyonidae should be capitalized (all scientific names above the rank of species are capitalized). Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2023 (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:20th Century Studios 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: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, unproposed, and incorrectly formed. Her Pegship (?) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice if it would go through proper process. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, stub templates and categories are not free for just any random user to create on a whim for just any topic of personal interest — they have a very high minimum size requirement before creation is warranted (i.e. you would have to find 60 stubs that needed this and didn't already have two other stub templates on them anyway), and for that very reason they have to be proposed for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting so that their necessity or lack thereof can be discussed. But there's no evidence that proper process was followed here, and the template hasn't actually been applied to any articles despite having existed for about a year now. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I doubt any movie studios, especially the majors, would have that many movies in their catalogue which stay stubs for long enough to collectively reach the minimum requirement which Bearcat described. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:43, 11 April 2023 (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:Churches in Germiston[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. User:Namiba 18:59, 6 April 2023 (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:Royalty and nobility of Austria-Hungary[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Royalty is a subcategory of Category:Nobility. Similarly, most countries have a nobility category, and then a royalty subcategory (for example Category:French royalty is a subcategory of Category:French nobility), but no other country uses "royalty and nobility". V27t [ T • C ] 17:36, 6 April 2023 (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.

Women of the Holy Roman Empire[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "of" in the case of multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2023 (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:Holy Roman Empire royalty[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:Royalty of the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The demonym is inappropriate in the case of multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (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:Politicians of the Holy Roman Empire[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:Politicians from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "of" for multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2023 (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:Physicians in the Holy Roman Empire[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 to Category:Physicians from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that "from" is preferable to "in" for multi-ethnic empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (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:Holy Roman Empire philosophers[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:Philosophers from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The demonyn is unsuitable for empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2023 (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 of the Holy Roman Empire[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 to Category:Businesspeople from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For multi-ethnic empires, it seems that "from" is preferred to "of". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though the subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2023 (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.

Slavers[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a lot of overlap between slave owners and slave traders. How does one own a slave without having first purchased that slave? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment then that leaves Slavers as a simple dichotomy: owners and traders. I thought that dichotomies were discouraged? Was not every trader an owner of the slaves that he traded? Isn't that WP:Perfect ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds acceptable. However, we have a potential purge problem around Emirs. Every Emir in the vicinity seems to be lumped into the slave owner category. While they probably were slave owners, it all looks a bit WP:Pointy. After all, so were most Christian rulers not to mention every notable person of antiquity. Shouldn't the scope be confined to people who were notorious or prominent for slave owning? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Once this is closed/withdrawn, we can purge the extraneous emir subcategories, and concentrate on those persons for whom it is defining.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that some are in both is not good enough. Slave trader is an occupation, slave owner is not, there is a big difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make any sense. Plantation owner may be an occupation (assuming ownership implies management) and we have Category:Plantation owners for that. But slave ower is not an occupation, one may rather characterize it as an uneven relationship between two or more people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, that is how the subcategories are organized. We could rename all the country demonyms to "Slave owners of Foo". All slave traders are slave owners by definition, but currently only 241 people are in both.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Slavers is an empty category that will be deleted soon (it also wasn't tagged as being part of this CFD discussion). Category:Slave owners is a full category that has been used for the past 8 years. I see no reason to delete a category that has existed for years and been used in favor of a brand new category with a term that is less familiar ("Slavers" vs. "slave owners"). Plus, I don't think every slave owner was a "slaver" which implies this was their primary occupation. I don't think a Merge would be an improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 13 April 2023 (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:Shinty clubs established in 1855[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 to Category:Sports clubs established in 1855. Additionally, Category:Shinty clubs by year of establishment will be automatically deleted per C1. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One entry. Only year of this tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I suspect that other shinty clubs in the 19th century would be in the same position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2023 (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:Lists of Nepalese cricket records and statistics[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 to Category:Nepalese cricket lists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category, the one article (and 3 listed in incorrect format in this article) are already categorised in Category:Nepalese cricket lists. Other countries that have stats lists have unique content for them, whereas this would just be a duplication Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2023 (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:Dhangadhi Premier League lists[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 to Category:Nepalese cricket lists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, the only article listed is already in Category:Dhangadhi Premier League, so no need to upmerge there. But sensible to add it to Category:Nepalese cricket lists Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per nom; deletion applies when the category in the above discussion is kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2023 (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:Nepal Premier League[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 to Category:Nepalese domestic cricket competitions. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, these competitions only appear to have taken place in 2014. Nepal Premier League redirects to Everest Premier League, but I don't see any evidence that it's the same competition (it may be a successor competition). If evidence can be found that the 2 are the same, then and only then a merge to Category:Everest Premier League may be a better option. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2023 (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:Women Prime Ministers of Turkey[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 to Category:Women prime ministers and Category:Prime Ministers of Turkey. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 member. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (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:Women Prime Ministers of Sweden[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 to Category:Women prime ministers and Category:Prime Ministers of Sweden. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 member. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2023 (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:History of the Muisca[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 to Category:Muisca. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, only contains Muisca Confederation. Before the Muisca Confederation virtually nothing is known about the Muisca. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2023 (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:Sportspeople by ethnic or national origin[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 09:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. WP:COP-HERITAGE allows only descent or diaspora.
Summary: This recently created parallel category tree was also populated by the same continent and region decent subcategories. Continuing removals after categories were emptied by previous discussions.
Followup to:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2023 (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:New towns in Egypt[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: Opposed/Keep - jc37 09:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Make more concise. Also they are cities not towns. PalauanReich (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should rename the entire category to match the article name.--User:Namiba

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus against the nominator's proposal, but the alt rename needs assessment as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for finding this. Then I withdraw my alternative and simply oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Multiple reasons. Agree that category is part of the Category:New towns, which is a particular planning philosophy that inspired the Egyptian one. Second, in response to the town/city argument, the Arabic word for both is madina (مدينة) that does not distinguish between the two settlements' sizes (towns usually being smaller than cities, but there are other definitions), when the government agency chose a translation it chose 'new city' [[1]] (Though many non NUCA developments outside this list named New X or Y are just real estate developments and not new towns.) Third, despite this 'official' naming, from an administrative point of view, 'new cities' are neither cities, nor towns, but qisms (police wards) sometimes attached to the nearest 'old' (administrative) city (see for example the 'Administrative' section in New Cairo), or attached to the governorate itself, jointly run by local administration and the Ministry of Housing New Urban Communities Authority.Ypedia1 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:C2C and WP:C2B: parent Category:New towns. The WP:C2D alt rename argument fails per Aidan721. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2023 (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:Conservative Party of Quebec MNAs[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At the time when the (old) Conservative Party of Quebec existed, there was no such thing as the National Assembly of Quebec, instead, there was a Legislative Assembly (the lower house that became the National Assembly in the 1960s) and a Legislative Council, for which a category already exists. This name is therefore ahistorical. It should be "Conservative Party of Quebec MLAs", which the category's description already sort of suggests.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as I'm not convinced that any important purpose would be served by privileging officialism over consistency here. The National Assembly isn't a different body than the Legislative Assembly was, it's merely the same body with a different name — so while it's technically true that the people in this category officially had the post-nominal letters "MLA" rather than "MNA", it's not at all clear that the distinction between an "MLA" and an "MNA" would be semantically significant enough to diverge from consistency with its siblings in Category:Quebec MNAs by political party, which are all named "MNAs" across the board. Category:Quebec Liberal Party MNAs, for instance, does not have a separate subcategory to sequester pre-1968 Liberal MLAs from post-1968 Liberal MNAS, but just keeps them all together in one common MNAs category regardless of whether each individual person would technically would have been called an MLA or an MNA in their own time. So I don't see why this party would need special treatment that other parties aren't getting: the LA and the NA were and are the same body, and we don't otherwise segregate MLAs and MNAs into two separate trees on what's fundamentally a trivial distinction. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Bearcat, there is sufficient continuity here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2023 (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:Women who experienced pregnancy loss[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 15:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Massive catch all category with exceedingly broad terms for inclusion anyone who's ever had a miscarriage or still birth. this is not a defining characteristic per WP:NONDEF in most cases, and there are clear BLP issues coming up with it. Gugrak (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this category. Pregnancy loss can be a major element of a woman's biography and miscarriages have been known to change the course of history, cf Catherine of Aragon. Queen Anne's 12 failed pregnancies have been the continued subject of retrospective diagnosis/analysis.[1] Pregnancy losses have been subject matter for female artists, such as in Frida Kahlo's painting Henry Ford Hospital, Ariel Levy's "Thanksgiving in Mongolia," and Elizabeth McCracken's An Exact Replica of a Figment of My Imagination. Per the oft-quoted statistic, 1 in 4 women will have miscarriage in their lifetime. Talking about these things hasn't always been common, but that is changing and in any case it has often been an important chapter in female biographies. If the category is broad, in that it includes women from Beyoncé to Vita Sackville-West to Maria Luisa of Parma, it may be because this is an elemental but understudied aspect of the female experience. jengod (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not what women are primarily known for. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, do you mean that women in general aren't primarily known for pregnancy loss, or that, as far as you know, there are no women in the entire history of the world who are known for pregnancy loss? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: I mean it in the sense of WP:DEFINING, i.e. a biography would normally not mention pregnancy loss as one of the key events in someone's life. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but a biography would normally not mention attending high school as one of the key events in someone's life, either, and we don't delete the high school alumni cats on this grounds. The way I see it is:
      • It's a defining event for some women.[*]
      • It's not a defining event for most women.
      [*] I'm using the definition as "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic".
      Should we refuse to have a category for the first group, just because it's not needed/relevant for a different group?
      Also, did you know that being a defining characteristic is not actually a requirement for categories? WP:CATDEF is the minimum, not the maximum. That's why we can have categories for the high schools that various BLPs attended. High schools are almost never defining categories (aside from a few student athletes and school shooters, I suppose), but that's okay: Wikipedia's guidelines do not prohibit the use of non-defining categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CATDEF is indeed the minimum requirement, not the maximum. There are also other reasons for deleting categories, unrelated to definingness. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you intend to name any? So far, you've said "Delete, this is not what women are primarily known for" and then said that "not what women are primarily known for" is not a policy-based reason for deleting the category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a defining characteristic is a requirement for categories. (See WP:NONDEFINING.) If you feel WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that isn't defining, please nominate those categories.- RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a requirement in categorising and not whether a category should exist. Defining and notable are content related and not category related. Biofase flame| stalk  16:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

Hemorrhage: A found poem about women on Wikipedia

This was unexpected, so the pregnancy was written into the storyline of the show. In October 1991, however, she had to have an emergency caesarean section in her seventh month of pregnancy, ending in the stillbirth of a daughter. The pregnancy on the show was then treated as a "dream sequence"

A series of stillbirths disenchanted the king and served to chill their relations

Further bouts of illness, that may have been miscarriages, occurred in mid-1678, early 1679, and early 1680. Her childlessness would be the greatest source of unhappiness in her life

Between the births of her two sons, Underwood had three miscarriages. In 2018, she told CBS News that this was the basis for her song "Cry Pretty", as "I would have these horrible things going on in my life, and then have to go smile and, like, do some interviews or, like, do a photo shoot or something."

Catherine produced no heirs for Charles, having suffered three miscarriages

In February 1961, Plath's second pregnancy ended in miscarriage; several of her poems, including "Parliament Hill Fields", address this event. In a letter to her therapist, Plath wrote that Hughes beat her two days before the miscarriage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs)
  • Carrie Underwood is known because she is a singer, not because she experienced pregnancy loss. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure but Daniel Inouye is known because he was a war hero and U.S. Senator not because he lost an arm in combat but we still have in him in Category:American amputees. It's a descriptive category not a judgement or a definition. jengod (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is what scares me about you. You are ready to delete entire category trees based on arbitrary views on notability. Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          If that happened, it'd be a problem for subjects like Terry Fox, who are known because of being amputees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of these long standing categories honestly have to be renamed.★Trekker (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Mass changes for the sake of mass changes are not good reasons. Biofase flame| stalk  03:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Mass changes to make something simpler, clearer and avoid problems in the future is a good reason.★Trekker (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            It does not make it clearer. One of the main if not the reason for categories is to make navigation easier. Biofase flame| stalk  22:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            What exactly does not make what exactly clearer? I havn't even made a single example of a rename I would support for a long standing category.★Trekker (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubts I can see many pros and cons about this category. If kept, it definitely should adhere to WP:BLP policy (and the category description already goes a long way in that direction). It was only recently created in December 2022 (by a female editor, which is probably a good thing), it is a catch-all, I'm not sure about its name, definition, and scope, and category tree. If it is a subcat of Category:Miscarriage, why don't we simply name it Category:Women who have had miscarriages? Moreover, since trans men can technically also have miscarriages (because they can have wombs and get pregnant), perhaps "People" rather than "Women" is a better catname? Perhaps more importantly, "experienced pregnancy loss" is a pretty non-standard formulation as far as I know. On the one hand, it sounds euphemistic (which may be a good or a bad thing); on the other it sounds (overly?) dramatic, as if society should regard it as a bad thing ("loss") by definition (a pro-life POV), which may not always be the case for the individuals in question (e.g. some had an unwanted pregnancy, but miscarried and thus, in a narrow and crude sense, their "problem" was "solved", even if this might still have (lasting) negative effects, which might be regarded as a "pro-choice POV", even though it wasn't a "choice", but I digress). But I very much feel like we cannot make this decision without asking relevant user groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force to participate. I for one as a cis man feel uncomfortable making a proper assessment of whether this category should even exist, and if so, how it should be named, defined, scoped, organised, BLPed etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I used the phrase pregnancy loss because once you get into the weeds on this "miscarriage" is sort of before 20 weeks gestation and "stillbirth" is after 20 weeks. And/or babies born very prematurely can be born alive but die shortly thereafter which isn't exactly a stillbirth but early deliveries in ye olde ancient times would have almost invariably have had fatal outcomes for the fetus/baby. So "pregnancy loss" kind of covers all of that (more: Overview of Pregnancy Loss). All of which is to say: Do we have a WIKIPROJECT Obstetrics or anything like that? I would love if someone from there might weigh on if this is out of bounds or what. jengod (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but all seem pretty dormant judging by the talk pages. But perhaps those aren't a good measure of activity? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red is looking pretty active, we could try it there? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ping Women in Red. Very interested in their feedback. All the other ones you mentioned seem worthwhile too. Just because they seem kind of quiet doesn't mean people aren't monitoring them. TY. jengod (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jengod I still see mostly editors whom I know or suspect to be male and who regularly participate in CfDs here. Perhaps we should repeat our request(s) and make it more explicit to inspire women to join the conversation? Regardless of which way it goes (I still haven't made up my mind), I think this is one of those instances where men shouldn't really "decide over women's bodies", even if indirectly. I don't expect female editors to have a unified point of view on this at all, but at least they should be given a better opportunity to voice their views here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're truly lovely for acknowledging some of the gender and sexuality issues that may be at work here. I seem to recall that Wikipedia editorship is somewhat gender imbalanced but I've never seen any data about reproductive histories within that cohort. It would be interesting for some researcher to look at someday! I'll just do a tour of the WikiProjects you surfaced, etc. Cheers ~j jengod (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would need constant monitoring to root out those cases for whom it was not a defining thing in the lives of those women. Nevertheless, for a very few women, it was a defining event. In mediaeval royal houses, failure to produce a male heir could result in exile, divorce or death. I'm thinking of Anne Bolyn in particular. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case a category named "Consorts exiled for infertility" could exist since that bears with it very clear criteria for inclusion and avoids any issues on if the person themselves or society at large considered it noteworthy, that doesn't mean "Women who experienced pregnancy loss" needs to also keep existing.★Trekker (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per reasoning by Laurel Lodged, it is a defining event which could be closely tied with someone's notability. Suonii180 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & I think "People who have experienced pregnancy loss" is a good term to use as its inclusive and covers the topic well. There are BLP concerns, but I think where there are strong, reliable sources, then this is relevant biographical information. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How will editors identify people who fall into this category? This biological occurrence is so ubiquitous we may as well have a category "women who menstruate". WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V through WP:RS. The description states women who publicly disclosed pregnancy losses (including women whose work product was the means of disclosure), royal or noblewomen whose pregnancies were a matter of political-historical significance, or notable women whose pregnancy losses were documented in historical records including diaries, letters, etc. I'm not so sure about the latter two per WP:PRIMARY, but I think these are reasonable criteria for verification. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seem to remember that most pregnancies are actually unsuccessful, including a number of unsuspected ones. So a very large number of women would belong in this category, making it indiscriminate and therefore useless. I see that the category is largely populated by royals from eras where health conditions were difficult and losing offspring (born and unborn) a common occurrence. I suggest, maybe, something along the lines of Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss and wrote about it or Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss and are famous for it. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't usually give long-winded names for categories to define their scope, just like we don't use "List of notable people..." in article titles, even when the Wikipedia:List selection criteria for a given list limits it to notable people only.
    Whether your first sentence is correct depends upon your POV on the Beginning of pregnancy controversy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony included in my comment may not have been obvious enough. ;-) Without irony: if a pregnancy loss event itself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then only that would be an acceptable basis for categorization. I highly doubt that is often the case, if at all. Au contraire, otherwise famous women who miscarried are an only mildly interesting topic. In the case of princesses and royals, frequently cited in this discussion and in the category in its current state, the production of heirs, sad as it may be, was (and still is) considered as probably their main 'job'. The lack to produce a heir was only what interested their contemporaries, and the way it happened is probably regarded in pretty equivalent terms: miscarriage, the birth of a daughter, child mortality or plain sterility, including father-related. There's no reason to single out pregnancy loss. Place Clichy (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubts Writers or other artists who focus on this topic or activists (broadly speaking) who advocate for providing support for those who had miscarriages, that all would be defining. The experience itself, even when verified, seems to be a big chunk of the population unfortunately. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think a phrasing like Category:Notable women who had notable pregnancy losses is reasonable except those filters should have already been applied to the article existing in the first place and the information being included in the article in the second. This information is here because it's been included in reliable sources about generally notable individuals. It's not like anyone is looking to Wikipedia for an index of Every woman for the past 10,000 years who has ever had a miscarriage. For the most part people keep these stories within families. But at a certain historic/cultural threshold I do think it becomes an encyclopedic topic. jengod (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your thoughtful reply! I like your idea of limiting the category to where it's defining; I'm also unsure if adding "defining" to the category name would accomplish that in practice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notable" has all sorts of problems with MOS:NOTED and elsewhere. It's also kind of redundant; we wouldn't categorise anyone or anything that isn't notable per WP:N. I don't think this can be solved in the title, it should be solved with a clear and unambiguous description indicating how the category should be populated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that including a word like notable or defining is not appropriate. The normal way of titling a "Category:Notable women who had notable pregnancy losses" is "Category:Women who had pregnancy losses". You should only put notable women who verifiably experienced a pregnancy loss that is relevant or prominent into that generically titled category, but you should not bloat the cat title itself to say that the category does not need to be stuffed with anyone who experienced pregnancy loss. The guideline for naming categories says to avoid descriptive adjectives such as famous, important, or notable in category titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can see how it could be life-defining for some royals and nobles. Inclusion should depend on the pregnancy loss being confirmed in historical records, and not based on rumors. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — more than half of fertilized zygotes never implant, another 1/10 of those miscarry before 20 weeks, another 1/160 stillbirth any time after 20 weeks. For most of history, it would never be DEFINING to miscarry, as they had no idea. By studying cattle, they thought pregnancy started with "conception" (implanted fetus, placenta, and umbilical), and didn't count until "quickening" (feeling movement). We shouldn't have Category:Women who failed to bear sons either, even though reliable sources report divorce and beheading.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There really was no need for the maths lesson. I think that we are all agreed that for the majority of females, whether human or bovine, pregnancy loss is not a defining thing. However, for a very few, it is a notable and defining thing and so should be kept. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is clearly not helpful for navigation, like it has been pointed out over 50% of all pregnancies never result in a live birth, and who is to decide when someones miscarriage was "notable enough" for it to be included? Many women's articles mention that they've suffered pregnancy loss but that doesn't make it remotly noteworthy in their overall life, its a major POV hazard. This also isn't like a school where its pretty easily veriafiable if someone went or graduated from there, and schools comparable account for fewer people of the entire population, a quarter of humanity hasn't gone to Harvard or Yale, but a quarter might have had a pregnancy loss. Schools also often have alumni pages, this deeply personal and private event in someones life isn't something that is being databased.★Trekker (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StarTrekker, unless you believe that pregnancy (NB: not "life") begins at the moment sperm makes contact with the ovum, then the numbers you're claiming are wrong.
    More importantly, all categories are helpful for navigation. Navigation is the only reason the entire category system exists. What I'm ultimately hearing from you is "I personally can't imagine that anyone would be interested in reading about women whose lives were changed by a known, clinically significant pregnancy loss". Many women's article's don't mention that they've experienced pregnancy loss, but if it's mentioned (and properly cited) in the article, it probably is "noteworthy in their overall life". Why else would an editor put it in the article, if it were utterly unimportant to the subject's life?
    I'd say that it is exactly equivalent to a school: it's very easily verifiable (because verifiability is 100% about whether reliable sources say this, and 0% about whether a Wikipedia editor believes the subjects' doctors were correct to call it pregnancy loss), and some women do bond around pregnancy loss in a way that is much deeper and more significant than which school(s) they attended. Also, many women experience pregnancy loss, but not all belong in Wikipedia or in this category, exactly like many women attended school, and yet not all belong in Wikipedia or in a category for the school(s) they attended. See how many times you have to click on Special:RandomInCategory/21st-century women before you find an article that names a high school. It looks like there are about 100,000 articles in the Category:Alumni by secondary school category tree. That means that ~95% of biographies don't include a category for a attending a high school, even though the categories exist and most notable BLPs attended high school. We could equally well have ~95% of biographies not include this category, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fundamentally disagree with everything here. For one, the school categories aren't called "people who attended high school", they're named after specific schools which are notable and that category you liked to is simply a container category.★Trekker (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Alumni" is just a fancy word for "people who attended this school". That means that Category:Whitney M. Young Magnet High School alumni literally means "People who attended Whitney M. Young Magnet High School".
    Your argument here is that we should have a category for people who had one notable experience (attending Whitney M. Young Magnet High School) and not have a category for people who had another notable experience (experiencing pregnancy loss).
    Furthermore, you're arguing that we should do this for the school even though the articles in that cat normally dedicate one (1) single sentence to the school, and not do this for pregnancy loss even for subjects who have written whole books on the subject.
    I find this line distinctly uncompelling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly that's only if you count the number of spontaneous abortions where the women aren't even aware which would itself be a subjective criteria. Secondly it's a specific event and not just "events around reproduction" which would be the equivalent "people who attended high school" in the modern Western world. Not all Harvard alumni are listed and not all pregnancy loss would be listed but only notable ones. Biofase flame| stalk  03:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the category "Harvard alumni" does go on every person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article that attended it.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not actually true. We include the cat when the article mentions the school, but we have a lot of BLPs whose education is not mentioned at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the biography article doesn't mention the school, go ahead an boldly remove the category. If you feel WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is nondefining, please start new nominations. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining. At most we could have a "Pregnancy loss advocates" if there are enough articles for that.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. With only 38 articles and a sub-cat named after a person, this would be a much simpler way for folks to find articles than having an entire category. Her Pegship (?) 18:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. As always anything can be used wrongly or correctly. This seems to have merit. Biofase flame| stalk  18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major historical/biographical fact for a small number of women. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a category for such non-speculative, well-cited cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is kept it needs to be renamed to reflect that its only for cases where it was defining. We can't just have categories were they clearly describe something non-defining and expect people to assume its defining "only for a few people".★Trekker (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you haven't read the relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again why does the category have to be defining for the person and not because of the person. That's your own subjective reasoning. Biofase flame| stalk  03:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because then we could have categories for every single piece of crud that ever existed. And how exactly is miscarriage defined because some notable women had them?★Trekker (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't categories for "every single piece of crud" but why should all notable subject matter not be grouped in a category? Biofase flame| stalk  22:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1) There will soon be is stuff like this is allowed, 2) because there is a finite amount of space in articles and most of it shouldn't be taken up by unimportant trivia in the form of 10k categories for every little detail.★Trekker (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no actual rule in any guideline against having non-defining categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an actual rule in the WP:NONDEFINING guideline against having non-defining categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rule means under no circumstances. That is not what the guideline says. Biofase flame| stalk  02:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a life event, not a characteristic. I think "Pregnancy loss advocates" is going in the right direction but nobody is advocating for more pregnancy loss; they're advocating for awareness. "Pregnancy loss awareness" would be a useful category that we could use for both biographies and for pages such as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. Also let's keep in mind that advocates for awareness are not necessarily women. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pregnancy loss awareness advocate Anne Boleyn was not available for comment." jengod (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anne Boleyn wasn't known for having miscarriages, she was known for failing to give her husband a son (the miscarriages was only "why" that happened, not why anyone cared), and yet I'm sure you'd agree that we shouldn't have categories named "Queens who failed to give their husbands a male heir".★Trekker (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Given the way the genetics work, we'd have to rename that to "Kings who failed to sire males". Only males have Y chromosomes, so if no Y-chromosome-bearing offspring are forthcoming, it's his fault, not hers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True but not really relevant. The point was that it's a ridiculous thing to make a category for.★Trekker (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ridiculous, but it'd need some tweaking. As female succession is normal in Scotland when there are no males in the family, it might be reasonable to have a category about women who inherited a title because they were not male. I'd personally start with a list, though, so you could mark which ones inherit only due to a lack of surviving males vs those who inherit despite having younger brothers (absolute primogeniture). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were enough then why not? Biofase flame| stalk  03:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ridiculous. Failing to sire sons in monarchies with patrilineal inheritance structures is the basis of like 87% of wars. I also laugh mightily every time I see Category:Daughters of kings, like the dude just manifested her fully formed out of his head the way Zeus created Athena. Come now. jengod (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ridiculous. Some things belong in categories and some things in lists and some things are best covered in articles. Maybe an article named "Male heir crisises" or similar could work, but not a category. Not everything needs a category.★Trekker (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything needs an article. It's about what works best for the applied case and categories work best when it's about navigation. Biofase flame| stalk  20:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is meant to be for articles, categories are literally only a tool we use to navigate articles. Having an article on a topic is almost always prefered over trying to group together otherwise unrelated articles via category.★Trekker (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're arguing something never said. I didn't say there shouldn't be articles where necessary but not everything can or should be in an article. Categories are a useful tool that should be used where it makes things easier and better so don't discount them. An encyclopedia without an index system to group and find things is almost useless like the web is without a search engine. Biofase flame| stalk  22:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now you're arguing against something I never said, I never said navigation was unimportant.★Trekker (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a second class citizen. I see them as equally important. Biofase flame| stalk  22:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept why not also have "Category:Women who experienced stillbirths", "Category:Women who experienced SIDS" or "Category:Women who experienced the loss of a child", "Category:Widows", "Category:Widowers" etc etc? Experiencing a pregnancy loss is a thing that happens sometimes NOT a trait.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say it's common so doesn't belong in a cat like "people who went to school" and now you say it's sometimes. Biofase flame| stalk  20:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not remotely a contradiction.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pregnancy loss encompasses stillbirth. I don't think there's a need to have a sub-cat for stillbirth specifically.
    We already have Category:Widowhood and its subcats for people whose "traits" include widowhood (e.g., any of the Empress dowagers in history). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every item on your list of "things we would never have a category for; that's laughable" seem like reasonable category topics to me. (FWIW, pregnancy loss includes stillbirth as is discussed upthread.) I think Queen Victoria is super mad that there's not already a widows category and that she's not in it. Widow was her defining characteristic for like 45 years. But whatever. Is Category:Victoria's Secret Angels a trait of those women or is it a gig job doing something that's valued by the predominantly male gaze of Wikipedia editors? This is an encyclopedia. It's an everything machine. And everything includes stuff like "sometimes dead bodies come out of the eighth human hole found only in females of the species and for an assortment of personal and political reasons sometimes that's a very big deal." jengod (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Lets have billions of categories for literally everything. "Category:People who have blue eyes" and "Category:People who attended high school" here we come. Honestly I'd rather get ridd of the category system all together than fill the site with this kinda stuff. Also, I'm female so don't try to pull that "most of Wikipedia is male" on me.★Trekker (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jengod, let's talk some time about a widow/widower category. If we set the standard at having an impact on the person's reason-for-notability that's worth describing in the article (which is a higher standard than categorizing Michelle Obama by her high school), then certainly Victoria counts, and so do Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and Coretta Scott King, but probably also Thomas Jefferson (his daughter served as hostess when he was president, because he was a widower), Jane Franklin (wouldn't have financed those Arctic expeditions if her husband hadn't died on one), Mary Todd Lincoln, Joe Biden (talked about during his election campaigns), Courtney Love (Gen X's most famous widow), Roman Polanski (wife murdered by the Manson family), and Yoko Ono. We could probably come up with a much longer list of notable people whose widowhood was relevant to their notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why categories should be traits rather than events. Category:Bombing is a list of events. Try removing that. Here's both a category and a list. None of the reasons for why something should not be in a category seems valid so far. Lists are helpful where a number of items need a description and categories are helpful where items need their own articles so either or both can be helpful. This sounds more like a "purist" issue. Biofase flame| stalk  21:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those events are usually actually defined and notable because of those occurrences. Having Oklahoma City bombing in the category Bombings isn't the same as having Oklahoma City in the category just because a notable bomving happened there. If there was an article for Anne Boleyn's miscarriages it would also be included in the miscarriage category. We simply can't have categories for every single minute detail.★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer:
    1. WP:OCTRIVIA: Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic.
    2. WP:CATDEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe the topic....
    3. WP:CATSPECIFIC: ... do not add categories to pages as if they are tags.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK but we're definitely cataloging all the feminist scholarship on these topics to determine what's a common and a consistent description, yes? Because otherwise we might fall prey to some systemic bias about what's important and encyclopedic about these women, as determined from their own perspective, in ruthlessly patriarchal societies that diminished their personhood in favor of their role as mothers and heir providers, and in a modern reinterpretation? Cool cool cool. jengod (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jen, my memory may be fading, but I'm fairly sure you've been around here as long or longer than me. In our historically patriarchal society, women had no rights, to vote, to own property, to inheritance, to health care, to be a professional (professor, lawyer, engineer, doctor). But Michelle Obama never describes herself as a miscarriage survivor. She is much more than that. Point to any article that begins its lede, "Michelle Obama began this interview by complaining about her miscarriage, and subsequent IVF treatments."
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Allen Simpson Associated Press (2018) quoting from her autobiography, headline "Michelle Obama had miscarriage, used IVF to conceive girls" [2]

“We were trying to get pregnant and it wasn’t going well,” Mrs. Obama, 54, writes in “Becoming,” set for release Tuesday. The Associated Press purchased an early copy. “We had one pregnancy test come back positive, which caused us both to forget every worry and swoon with joy, but a couple of weeks later I had a miscarriage, which left me physically uncomfortable and cratered any optimism we felt.”

The Obamas opted for IVF, one form of assisted reproduction that typically involves removing eggs from a woman, fertilizing them with sperm in a lab, and implanting the resulting embryo. It costs thousands of dollars for every “cycle,” and many couples require more than one attempt.

Mrs. Obama writes of being alone to administer herself shots to help hasten the process. Her “sweet, attentive husband” was at the state legislature, “leaving me largely on my own to manipulate my reproductive system into peak efficiency,” she said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 2023-04-10 20:15:10 (UTC)
  • That's not an actual interview, that's a book excerpt of an "early" stolen copy purchased before official release, reported as salacious material. Click bait doesn't qualify for categorization. (Your ping didn't work, because you forgot to sign. Always preview.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it occurs to me just now that many/most men have likely never listened in on a conversation where women compare and contrast their experiences of regular periods, early miscarriages and later miscarriages. Huh. jengod (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or they're just young. When you're in that high-school-and-college age range, you probably don't know many (or any) people who are trying to get pregnant, and if you know someone who's had multiple miscarriages, then it's probably someone who is your mom's or grandmother's age instead of your own.
    The End-of-history illusion traps us all: when you're young, you have an idea about pregnancy, and you expect your view to endure forever. When you're middle age, you look back and think "Huh, back when I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid on this subject, but now I've got this all figured out." When you're older, you look back and think the same thing about your middle-aged self... and the same thing about the likely infallibility of your older self's current views. It may be easy when you're young and invincible to believe that pregnancy loss is just one of those unimportant little things – a period that's a day or two later than you expected, a round of bad cramps, maybe a trip to the gynecologist's office at the most, but nothing that's ever, you know, life-changing (or in the case of those royal families, history-changing) or anything like that. Therefore all pregnancy loss is just "unencyclopedic", "overcategorization", and "trivia". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or as old as me, who has heard decades of women talk about miscarriage (starting with a stillbirth for a woman at church when I was 5). Nearly every woman experiences it. They don't lose their brains, or even their jobs anymore. (In my youth, women who became pregnant lost their jobs. My mother lost her job as a teacher for me. My kindergarden teacher, 3rd grade teacher, 6th grade teacher, all lost their jobs.) Friends underwent many rounds of IVF. And it never has been history changing, especially as most of the time they didn't even know what happened. Every family, royal or otherwise, experiences miscarriage, whether or not it becomes public. The only royal issue was the lack of sons. We now know that had nothing to do with the women.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a reliable source and yet I will quote us just the same. From the article infertility: "The medicalization of infertility has unwittingly led to a disregard for the emotional responses that couples experience, which include distress, loss of control, stigmatization, and a disruption in the developmental trajectory of adulthood...In many cultures, inability to conceive bears a stigma. In closed social groups, a degree of rejection (or a sense of being rejected by the couple) may cause considerable anxiety and disappointment. Some respond by actively avoiding the issue altogether; middle-class men are the most likely to respond in this way." I have this on my user page but remember, this is not the future. We are not civilized. We are a future generation's primitives. We haven't solved *any of this* {gestures at the world} just because a lawyer in 6 specific western countries might take your case if you get fired while visibly pregnant. jengod (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some version of your statement that "Nearly every woman experiences it." has appeared repeatedly in this discussion, and (a) it's irrelevant to the question of whether we should have a category for notable women with a significant connection to pregnancy loss and (b) unless your "nearly every woman" means "only sexually active fertile females who are not using effective contraception" and "it" means "fertilized egg" instead of "implanted blastocyst that survived long enough to be clinically detectable", then this statement is not true.
    (I hope that "stillbirth for a woman at church" involved a family you knew from your church, rather than an event that happened on the premises.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a conversation where women compare and contrast their experiences of regular periods, early miscarriages and later miscarriages." In my case at least, never. My mother had two successful pregnancies, and then a series of abortions because her doctors advised her that the children would have abnormalities. The great-aunt who raised me and my brother never had biological children of her own. She never told me whether she was infertile or whether her pregnancies ended in miscarriages. I got the impression that my family had a history of fertility problems. But this is not something that they talked about with their friends. My view on whether pregnancy loss is significant, has been more shaped by its impact on inheritance cases than trying to measure the psychological impact. Dimadick (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside comment — For perspective, I asked a former Member of Congress in my living room. She stated, "Miscarriage should never be defining for a woman." That tracks with WP:NONDEFINING.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think by defining it means it actually defines the woman. Biofase flame| stalk  17:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly what the word "defining" means. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with that. It does not have to apply to the woman herself. Biofase flame| stalk  21:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Does your politician generally like to indulge in the bad habit of telling other women how they should feel about their own lives?
      I wonder how she would categorize women who spent months in jail, having been charged with murder or manslaughter after a miscarriage? We could easily have an article that begins "Regina McKnight was the first woman in the US to be convicted of murder because her baby was stillborn." And shouldn't we put Bei Bei Shuai in Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss? The sole reason we have an article about her is – the sole reason any source has written about her – because she spent 435 days in jail after her (legal) suicide attempt resulted in her living and the baby dying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't think of much to add to jengod's opening post. Reading the discussion and voting it seems that once again we can see how the high ratio of male Wikipedia editors can affect the thinking of this place. Sectionworker (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this is straightforward but am surprised and disappointed that so many of the oppose votes offer rationales that are quite plainly wrong.
    • "this is not what women are primarily known for" categories are not restricting to recording the one thing someone is primarily known for. They aren't even for recording the things people are commonly known for. How many of us have knowledge of the year of birth or place of birth of many of the notable people we know? Fewer still know what school or university they went to.
    • "a biography would normally not mention pregnancy loss as one of the key events in someone's life" I'm not sure where the idea that "key events in someone's life" correspond to categories comes from. Some key events are categories and some are not. We don't have "married twice" or "widowed" or "father to three children" categories but those are all key events.
    • "ubiquitous" Well, "Living people" is heavily populated. The category is concerned with pregnancy loss that is both known to the woman and disclosed and documentented, and this makes it far from ubiquitous. We have lots of very big categories such as "21st-century women".
    • "This is a life event, not a characteristic". Winning an award or an Olympic gold, or being convicted of theft, or suicide are all life events. This neatly contradicts the other vote above, that seemed to require it be a key life event.
    • "Not defining". The reason we have WP:DEFINING and so many guideline pages discussing categorisation and over-categorisation is that the English word "defining" doesn't itself completely correspond to our criterial. Asking the man or woman in the street whether X is "defining" isn't helpful. Few people's lives are defined by being born in 1945 or in Swindon or going to SomeTown Grammar or graduating from SomeCity university and so on. That aspect of the word "defining" is pretty restrictive. The other meaning of the word, as the minimum information necessary to identify or describe a subject is also too restrictive when you consider most categories we have. Clearly we need to accept that "defining characteristic" is Wikipedia Jargon with a very specific meaning. Consider "Junior doctor", who are currently on strike in the UK. This is any hospital doctor who is not a consultant. It is UK medical jargon rather than some indication the doctor is young or inexperienced.
    I think some are struggling to know how this category should work, and the lack of entries in it don't help. But offering rationales that would mean that Barak Obama should have one category "Former US President" don't help us determine where to draw the line. -- Colin°Talk 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 🤨 Millions if not billions of women have had miscarriages (if this is even how you define “pregnancy loss” here), but it’s not a defining trait of their life for Wikipedia. I’m sure this doesn’t include women who have had to have emergency abortions or chose abortions in general and consider this a “pregnancy loss”. This is just heinous. Trillfendi (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trillfendi I mean I think both Frida Kahlo (see newly created Henry Ford Hospital (painting) article) and Chrissy Tiegen (see Chrissy Teigen Says Her Miscarriage With Jack Was Actually an Abortion to Save Her Life "It became very clear around halfway through that he would not survive, and that I wouldn't either without any medical intervention.") match your description and they are included. jengod (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Trillfendi's point, I have created Pregnancy with abortive outcome to go with the extant Category:Pregnancy with abortive outcome. My lay understanding is that prior to 22 weeks all pregnancy loss is medically called "abortion" with the distinguishing division being induced abortion (regardless of the motive for the induction) and spontaneous abortion. jengod (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nondefining for practically every individual who experienced pregnancy loss. A category for activism/awareness could be reasonable, however. (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete - I think this is a topic that needs explanation. Even if I look at the discussion above. I agree that this information may be verifiable and may even be noteworthy for some. But I'm having a hard time seeing how this meets WP:DEFINING. So, I think this is better as a list, rather than a category per Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Disadvantages_of_a_category #2. - jc37 09:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37, defining pertains to articles and not categories. Per WP:N and WP:V a characteristic is defining if both the subject is noteworthy enough to have an article and reliable sources regularly mention the characteristic or event. It does not determine if a category should exist and likewise just because a category does exist it does not mean it should be included in it, e.g. just because someone is a lawyer does not mean they should be included in category lawyers unless 3rd party party sources regularly mention them as such. Biofase flame| stalk  12:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for sharing your perspective, but that's not quite how that works for categorisation. Wikipedia:Defining - "For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized." - So my question to you is this: Are any of these people notable due to having this experience? - jc37 14:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works either. Notability is defined by 3rd party sources and the frequency by which a characteristic or event is mentioned. They DON'T have to be notable BECAUSE of it. So the answer is yes, some of those people have it as a notable event. This does not apply to whether a category should exist or not and notability applies to content and not categories. Biofase flame| stalk  15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I literally was quoting the relevant standard for categorisation. People have many experiences throughout their lives. But we do not categorise people based upon any and every event. From what I can tell, people are not notable for this any more than they are notable for any one of a number of other events that occur. I do not dispute that this event may be important to that person. But we do not categorise people based upon that. - jc37 15:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the standard does not apply the way you're applying it. People don't have to be notable because of an event or characteristic for it to be categorised but only the event or characteristic be notable. That's literally what the part you quoted says — "unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career." It does NOT say they themselves have to be notable for it.
    I'm also not saying that we categorise based on if the event is important to the person but we DO categorise based on the event being notable in media. If we apply the standard the way you are then every BLP can only fit in one category. Biofase flame| stalk  16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. As the example states (paraphrasing) - we categorise a film actor as that, not as a lawyer. Nor as a dish washer, ditch digger, schoolteacher, or accountant, unless they are notable for that job. Same here. Is the person notable for this event? If yes, cool, if no, then no.
    What you seem to be arguing is whether this event is notable for categorisation. See Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium for that. Don't conflate that with categorising the people who may have experienced this event. - jc37 16:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it does not say "notable for" but pertains to the notability of their career or the trait/event. It's right there in what you quoted! But I'm not going to continue with this as it's a red herring. Notability is a content standard and not a category standard. Biofase flame| stalk  14:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jc37, Biofase is right. The words "notable for" are not helpful when it comes to discussing categories. Notable simply means people have noted this aspect of the person. But "notable for" is not the test. Look at all the categories that Obama is in. "Notable for" doesn't extend much beyond "being president". It is unhelpful. -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you both go read Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining and WP:Defining, and when you're done there, take a look at WP:EGRS, to see an example of implementation. - jc37 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we close this now please as there's clearly no consensus? I'm tired of being referred to policies by people who themselves don't understand them correctly. Biofase flame| stalk  23:17, 14 June 2023 (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 about multiple people in pre-Tang China[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:Articles about multiple Chinese people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the Tang dynasty is an arbitrary cutoff in the midst of Imperial China. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominated. No good reason to split by ancient, Imperial, modern China. Opposed to smallcats of 3 to 5 articles.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2023 (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:Astronomical events in the near future[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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrarily defined grouping of astronomical objects, most of which do not mention a future event in the next 10,000 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:05, 6 April 2023 (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.
  1. ^ "For The Want Of An Heir: The Obstetrical History Of Queen Anne". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-barack-obama-michelle-obama-c49c570c8a444ff3ac01f2f5e5b91b5f
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_6&oldid=1162354143"