Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25
February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Category:Habsburg period in the history of Slovakia[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 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match majority in this subcategory: Category:Croatia under Habsburg rule, Category:Czech lands under Habsburg rule, Category:Hungary under Habsburg rule, Category:Serbia under Habsburg rule.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@@Carchasm, Jc37, Fayenatic london, and Marcocapelle: this could also be the general solution to our Roman problem, already in place here.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which Roman problem… buildings, philosophers or both? – Fayenatic London 22:23, 27 February 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 rulers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The noun "women" should be corrected to the adjective "female"; the term "ruler" is too ambiguous (see also the ongoing Rulers CfD), and should describe what these women are/were doing, namely, holding a political office. There is already a Category:Lists of female office-holders (which includes non-political positions), and it follows the logic of the established parent categories, applies the adjective "female" rather than the noun "women", and is broad enough to encompass non-hereditary positions. In addition, the List of female hereditary rulers (which is already in the Category:Lists of female office-holders) is currently presented as the "main article" for this category, but I suppose that the List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government (which is already in the Category:Lists of women politicians, a subcat of both Category:Lists of female office-holders and Category:Lists of political office-holders) could aspire to the same status of "main article" for this category, because it concerns female heads of state, and heads of government, which includes elected and appointed women. In short, "Women rulers" is just an odd name and ambiguous grouping, whereas "Female political office-holders" is the logical option based on which people this category is meant to group, and to function in accordance with existing categories and lists. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:36, 26 February 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:Climbing magazines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was recently merged with Category:Mountaineering magazines (which I earlier requested), but I was away before the discussion closed, and my request to also rename it properly was not done. This category contains both magazines (i.e. available for purchase in shops) and journals (i.e. only available via subscription and with all the editorial boards of journals and volumes and issues etc.). So it should be renamed to "magazines and journals". In addition, as per Category:Climbing and mountaineering equipment companies and per Category:Climbing and mountaineering-related lists, it should also say "Climbing and mountaineering" (as some are more focused on one over the other and a reader might expect to see the search term when looking for it). Thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the merger discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11#Category:Climbing magazines. The renaming part was overlooked, partly because another editor suggested "…magazines and journals" which was rejected. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — your request was rejected after discussion. All mountaineering is climbing. Categories are not for fine distinctions of advertising and distribution targets. Also, we were unable to identify any Category:Academic journals in this category. Alpine Journal is the oldest mountaineering journal in the world. Yet it also uses the word "magazine" for itself, so there's no need to mention journals until we have a more robust evidence of academic journals. There is no existing union tree of "journals and magazines" (per Oculi). There is only Category:Entomology journals and magazines, a science category.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000 is now replacing "magazine" with "journal" in articles.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The American Alpine Journal is not a magazine, it is a journal. The Alpine Journal describes itself as a journal per here and not a magazine. The problem is that editors with no mountaineering or climbing experience or knowledge are making statements that would not make sense to people in the sport. Mountaineering is related to climbing (obviously) but is a distinct element. Previous editors understood this, and hence why we have the categories I outlined above. The current status for this category would not make sense to someone with knowledge of the sports and who was looking up something? The objective is to make these names more helpful, and not confusing (or just wrong). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazine: Non-peer-reviewed academic or professional publications are generally professional magazines. That a publication calls itself a journal does not make it a journal in the technical sense; The Wall Street Journal is actually a newspaper.
  1. Alpine Journal is a magazine.
  2. American Alpine Journal is a magazine.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a simple search: What's a journal? A journal is a scholarly publication containing articles written by researchers, professors and other experts. Journals focus on a specific discipline or field of study. Unlike newspapers and magazines, journals are intended for an academic or technical audience, not general readers. Alpine Journal and the American Alpine Journal both meet this test, written by experts, for experts. Journals are not restricted to academics. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can't buy these journals like a newspaper or magazine like the WSJ. They are not sold on shop shelves. You have to subscribe to them, like any journal, as they audience is other experts. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are describing a Trade magazine. Also, wikipedia itself disagrees with you. Please cite WP:RS, not random search results.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "trade" going on here in these journals, and no discussion of the business of the sports (although there are other publications for mountain equipment manufacturing companies). I am only trying to help a reader in this topic who is looking for these journals to find them. Nobody in the topic area would consider these are being "magazines" (the publications included). The example I provided is from the University of Manitoba Libraries which I think is an RS (especially in the area of cataloging publications), and they do support the fact that these are journals. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per established convention, we have separate trees for magazines on the one hand and for academic journals on the other hand, and the category does not contain academic journals. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comment above, journals are not just academic, they are however written by experts for experts, which is what some of these publications are (and they assert that themselves). Aszx5000 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are describing a Trade magazine. Also, wikipedia itself disagrees with you. Please cite WP:RS, not random search results.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment above. Sorry, to labour this, and I understand these are not "academic journals", but am trying to make this into something useful to readers who would know the topic area and am overhauling some of the articles. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 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:Habsburg monarchy by location[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 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 26 February 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.

Template:Cultural-Heritage-stub[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 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The template is specific to Cultural heritage of Serbia, so the current name is ambiguous, and might be used inadvertently on a heritage item of another country. For the same reason I suggest editing all the transclusions and not leaving a redirect.
As for the category, the parent was renamed to Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 8#Category:Cultural Property of Great Importance, but the article was renamed to lowercase in good faith last year, and the parent was just renamed again to Category:Cultural heritage of Serbia. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 26 February 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.

Pennsylvania Dutch[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 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The main articles, such as Pennsylvania Dutch and Pennsylvania Dutch language and many of the related categories, refer to this ethnic group as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" rather than as "Pennsylvania Germans". The categories should be uniform. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:42, 26 February 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.

Polysexuality[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 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There is a common understanding that "bi" is an umbrella term that refers to any person who is "attracted to more than one gender". This is the definition employed by the Human Rights Campaign, the Trevor Project, GLAAD and other major LGBT organizations, as well as leading bi academics such as Robyn Ochs. Under this definition, all varieties of "polysexuality" would fall under the bi umbrella. If these categories are deleted, the categories for pansexuality and pansexual people can be subcats of the bi categories. There is no article for polysexuality. At first glance, I assumed it was a reference to polyamory. Pinging: @User:Bearcat, @User:Another Believer, @User:TheTranarchist, @User:Mathglot, @User:Pyxis Solitary, @User:Marcocapelle, @User:Fayenatic london, @User:StarTrekker, @User:Place Clichy, @User:Anomalous+0, @User:Knoterification, @User:JDBauby, @User:discospinster Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:18, 26 February 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:Subdivisions of Denmark[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 17:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Administrative divisions by country.
Precedent:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Country subdivisions result renamed
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom result renamed
speedy discussion
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:55, 26 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_26&oldid=1157912320"