Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last I nominated this category for merging, matthiaspaul pointed out that both categories were well populated. Since that time, {{Authority control}} has gotten a complete redesign. Now, pages like NARA (identifier) have a total of 15 inbound links. Therefore, while Redirects from identifiers has 105 redirects populating it, that number could possibly go down soon.
Either way, it's not exactly clear what can separate a citation identifier from a regular identifier. LCCN (identifier) is included as a {{R from identifier}} despite mostly being linked from citations ({{cite book|lccn=89077393}}) while LCC (identifier) is tagged as {{R from citation identifier}} despite being almost entirely linked (8414 links) from {{Infobox book}} (50,653 transclusions) (of which at least 6,600 use |congress= or |lcc=) rather than {{LCC}} (511 transclusions).
There's no meaningful reason to seperate redirects with inbound links from citations from redirects with inbound links from infoboxes, an authority control, or anything else; especially if a redirect is more likely than not going to end up with inbound links from a variety of templates. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:11, 10 January 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.

Scholars of Islam[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 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OPTION A
OPTION B
Current category tree[edit]
As the closer noted, the previous discussion became quite incomprehensible because so many categories exist with quite similar names. So let's start with summarizing the tree, only insofar relevant for this discussion:
Problems[edit]
Now here are the problems:
  • Problem 1a: both Category:Islamic scholars and Category:Muslim theologians have the same main article "Ulama", but one category is the parent of the other.
  • Problem 1b (very much related to the previous): the difference in actual content between the two categories is unclear. When comparing e.g. the biography articles in Category:Islamic scholars in the United Kingdom with the articles in Category:20th-century Muslim theologians there really is not an obvious difference in the type of scholarship.
  • Problem 2: none of the biography articles mentions "Ulama" as a defining characteristic, and in fact there is no single term that is used consistently. Some of the words and phrases used instead are: Islamic theologian, fellow in Islamic Studies, scholar of Islam, Islamic scholar, lecturer of Islamic law, Hanafi theologian, representative of a (theologian) school, jurist, Twelver Shia scholar, religious scholar.
  • Problem 3: the name of Category:Scholars of Islam on top, which includes non-Muslim scholars, and the name of Category:Islamic scholars two levels deeper are very similar.
Nominator's conclusion[edit]
Category:Islamic scholars and Category:Muslim theologians should be merged because of problem 1a and 1b. Then how to call the merged category? There are three options, Ulamas, Islamic scholars and Muslim theologians, but neither of the terms is used consistently so we need a more general descriptor (problem 2). However "Islamic scholars" does not seem a good choice as a general descriptor because it resembles "Scholars of Islam" too much (problem 3). So ultimately I have a weak preference of "Muslim theologians" as it sounds less specific than "Ulamas", but either of the two will do. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion[edit]
@AmirahBreen, Grutness, and Dimadick: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know enough about the subject to pick which would be best - although I would say that for the average reader "Ulamas" might not mean much, and it might be a bit too specific a term for those who do know the subject well. I'd weakly favour "Muslim...", but I'm willing to be swayed by others who know more. The only vague problem I see with it is "Muslim theologians" sounds like theologians who are muslims, rather than specifically theologians who study Islam. It is quite possible that there are theologians who are muslim who study christianity or some other religion, and there are definitely christians who study Islam (e.g., Richard Francis Burton). Grutness...wha? 01:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect for the nomination, I incline towards "keep Islamic scholars, and reverse merge from Category:Muslim theologians". As a Christian, I am familiar with the idea of theologian and think it is widely understood, so would prefer "Muslim theologian" over "Ulamas". However, it is the term "Islamic scholar" that is predominantly used in Wikipedia articles and in other media. It is also used within Islamic sources, e.g. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quran,_Hadith_and_Scholars has "Islamic scholars" in the first line – and that wiki has no pages for Ulama or theologian.
Looking at some precedents: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_30#Ulama merged Category:Ulama to Muslim scholars of Islam. This ignored or overrode the intention stated at Category talk:Muslim scholars of Islam by Axiom292 (talk · contribs): "I am creating a new subcategory for ulama, because currently this category does not differentiate between religiously-trained ulama and academically-trained Muslim scholars of Islamic studies". Well, I suggest now that "Islamic scholars" be used for the former and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam for the latter.
On the other hand, that does not perfectly fit with Template:Category tree:Muslim scholars. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option B — we should name categories what people call themselves. Besides, "Islamic" is concerning Islam. while a "Muslim" is an adherent of Islam. So Option A is technically incorrect.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neither options are valid IMO. Option A will not work because all Muslim theologians are Islamic scholars, but not all Islamic scholars are theologians. Theology is a subfield of traditional Islamic studies (known as Aqidah) and it makes sense to group scholars whose focus is on theology (writing on matters on the nature of god and belief) and separate them from other Muslim scholars specializing in other fields such as the worldly Islamic criminal law. For option B, the word "Ulama" these days largely refers to religious office-holders (e.g. in religious courts or government ones) or at the very least involved in some ruler's court in some way, either assisting or advising them. Thus, it has political connotations...almost like they're a separate class of their own. In fact, the Ulama are a dominant power in Saudi Arabia's politics. I'd ping WP:ISLAM about the discussion to bring in editors more familiar with the Islamic context. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified WP:ISLAM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment -- I do not really know enough to be precise, but the article ulama implies that it covers both theologians and jurists (to use European terms), but there have been medieval Muslim scholars who were neither of these, chemists, astronomers, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tree only contains religious scholars. So chemists and astronomers are not part of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 15 January 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.

Ice hockey players by city[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/merge as nominated. – Fayenatic London 09:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Players are only broken down by city in the United States, upmerge to missing parents category of people by city to align with the rest of cities across the world. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the tree of ice hockey players by state already exists. It is not appropriate to keep these categories but to remove players from specific cities as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is plausible to abandon the sportspeople by city and state scheme altogether, and just keep it to sportspeople by team, but that would require a huge nomination. Just deleting a few of these categories here will help very little. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every little bit helps. All of those I've checked were categorized sportspeople by team (with many teams), plus a birthplace trivia without references. Hopefully, we've learned our lessons about huge nominations.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge/delete per above. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another reason to support this proposal is that it brings the US categories in line with the rest of the world, i.e. Category:Ice hockey people by city or town. There are no categories for ice hockey players by city anywhere outside of the US. If someone wants to nominate individual categories for deletion once the merge has been completed, that is a different discussion.--User:Namiba 17:07, 19 January 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:People associated with the finite element method[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:OCASSOC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:22, 10 January 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:American baseball players of Ghanaian descent[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 20:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category is unlikely to substantially grow in the near future. User:Namiba 19:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as requested. Same player is only article in both categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 12 January 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:Tufton Street[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A street address level category is far too fine grained. Previously was tagged with 'Brexit', and was used - as the main 'Tufton Street' article makes clear - as a metonym for a specific set of right-wing, brexit-supporting thinktanks. However, this has meant that adding this category to any other page becomes a highly politicised label, rather than a simple noting of street address. With the Brexit tag now removed, this category's purpose is even less clear. I've added other Tufton Street organisations to this category, but it seems pointless maintenance - however unless it is applied consistently like this, the category cannot be seen to be neutral. I'd suggest deleting it, but if not then at least renaming it to clarify it is not merely a neutral street address category and should not be used as such. Void if removed (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If the nominator is embarrassed that LGB Alliance chose to locate at the same address as "right-wing, brexit-supporting thinktanks" the correct solution is to attend a meeting of said group and put forward a motion that they pick a better address. There are lots of street categories (see Category:Streets in the City of Westminster). -- Colin°Talk 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tufton Street itself is not in the same class of historic importance and notability as Downing Street, and it already has its own article. Tufton Street is notable chiefly for its loaded double meaning, and given that, it needs to be clear which meaning is being used when it is applied as a category to an article. The way the category was being maintained up till now indicated it was used as shorthand for those specific thinktanks. That would be a valid category in its own right, but I think it should have a different name, eg. "Tufton Street (Gang of Nine)" or similar. If that's not the intent, then I think it just needs to be applied more evenly to other articles to avoid confusion - or (my preference) deleted given the non-notability of the street itself outside that specific political context. Void if removed (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suggest you examine other street categories in London (e.g. Category:Harley Street and Harley Street). That a street becomes "meaningful" is not at all unusual and certainly no reason for deletion. Void, it is clear from edits at LGB Alliance that your aim is to remove any association of that organisation with the address. That is LGB Alliance's problem, not ours. -- Colin°Talk 16:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about the address, I care about the meaning of the category. The originating "brexit" tag and the edits surrounding its creation make it clear this category was intended to organise references to "The Nine Entities", and that's how it has stayed for nearly four years. The only thing really notable about Tufton Street is "The Nine Entities". If that's what the category is for, it should be named as such, and no-one else should be added to it. Without that, I don't think Tufton Street is notable enough to warrant a whole category - it simply isn't in the same class as Downing Street or The Strand, or even Savile Row (which has no category). Void if removed (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here for visibility that since I nominated this category for deletion, its hierarchy has been changed (to add Streets in the City of Westminster) and four more entries have been added (Eleanor Rathbone, Charles Starmer, Tufton Street drill hall and Richard Tufton ). Void if removed (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizations aren't primarily known for their exact location, this in contrast to buildings. Organizations can easily move from one address to another. If other street categories need to purged or deleted, so be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete– there’s no clear rationale for this category, and nothing to explain what the subjects of the articles have in common (if anything). Sweet6970 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I've long been on record against categories for every crossroads and named neighborhood. Individual streets are even more WP:OCLOCATION WP:OCTRIVIA.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just any old street, though. It has its own Wikipedia article and a substantial reputation. I don't see how this is any different to "Harley Street". -- Colin°Talk 10:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Until December, the category had existed for four years seemingly with the sole purpose of collating the "Nine Entities" of 55/57 Tufton Street under a "Brexit" hieriarchy. The street's substantial reputation nowadays stems from its comparative anonymity and high political influence ("The most influential address you’ve never heard of"). As the main article points out "Tufton Street" has become a shorthand, synonymous with that influence and those thinktanks. If that is what the category was intended for, I think it should remain for that purpose, and be renamed to make it clear that that is what it is for, not simply a grab bag for anyone and everything related to the street. If it is to collate every detail about Tufton Street and its history - and thanks to you and I it has now doubled in entries since last week - I frankly don't see why it is a necessary or useful categorisation, when everything of relevance simply links to the main Tufton Street article itself. Should defunct organisations be removed? Should any organisation that was ever there be added? Should the entry for Matthew Elliott be part of this category? None of this is clear. IMO the categories for Harley Street and Downing Street are similarly ad hoc and unclear, but don't have the same loaded double meaning of "Tufton Street", hence why I'm seeking a clarifying rename or a deletion of this one. Void if removed (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What editors did in the past with a category is not anyone's concern. You've already explained the reputation and I don't see that as anything different to reputations, deserved or otherwise, of streets like Harley Street (doctors), Oxford Street (shopping), Wall Street (finance). What categories Matthew Elliott should be in are a matter for editors on that article (though I don't think his link to the street seems strong). Void, you seem to be, frankly, an absolute beginner when it comes to categories, having absolutely no other edits in this namespace or concerning them. They can be difficult to define/organise and they represent a hierarchical way of classifying the world that doesn't map onto reality all that well. That's why many other information systems use tags. But we have what we have. That you find it unclear is not a reason for deletion.
    The news article title about the street that you link is badly titled. There isn't anyone aware of modern UK politics who hasn't heard of Tufton Street, and a Google News search for "Tufton Street" turns up over 1000 articles. It is a highly notable street and the key fact that an organisation is based there (i.e. deserves to be in Category:Tufton Street) generates news articles. That journalists write articles about who is associated with this street is all the more reason for Wikipedia to categorise who and what is associated with this street.
    It is not our concern, though I appreciate it is yours, that it reflects negatively that LGB Alliance happens to have a base there. The National newspaper is among a handful of papers who have written about this association and writes "In time, we will look back on this period when self-described feminists found themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with fascists, and organisations like the LGB Alliance claimed grassroots status while taking offices at 55 Tufton Street, and wonder how it all came to be such a mess." -- Colin°Talk 14:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in Current Form A physical location for buildings is objective and usually defining while a label for organizations is often subjective and less likely to be defining. Note that "Wall Street" has a dual meaning too but that Category:Wall Street consists (primarily) of building articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:08, 14 January 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.

High-priority free software projects[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This concept is based purely on primary sources from the FSF and not in WP:RS. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:38, 10 January 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.

no conceivable use[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) IP user was just blocked for a week, so there can be no further explaination. William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. 103.21.175.59 (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, no proper rationale for deletion has been provided ("no conceivable use" is not a proper rationale). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 10 January 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_January_10&oldid=1136819911"