Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Category:Petrology concepts[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 07:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A concept is typically defined as a theoretical idea. The contents of this category are mostly palpable, material things or phenomena, like facies, matrix (geology), conchoidal fracture, etc. The parent category appears enough for them. Brandmeistertalk 23:22, 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:Jewish American sportspeople[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 07:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Precedent is Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 25#Category:Sportspeople by religion, with specific examples at WP:OCEGRS.
Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist.
Dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. There is no Jewish method of coaching, or managing, or playing these sports.
This also suffers from Verifiability and maintenance. WP:CATEGRS requires:
Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question....
Furthermore, WP:COP-HERITAGE requires:
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We require that the sport topic in its own right be distinct and unique to Jewish Americans.
  1. There is no distinct and unique method of playing these sports culturally or genetically inherited from their parents or grandparents.
  2. There is no distinct and unique Jewish American baseball.
  3. There is no distinct and unique Jewish American boxing.
  4. There are no distinct and unique Jewish American doctors. (previously decided)
  5. There are no distinct and unique Jewish American philosophers. (previously decided)
  6. WP:OTHERSTUFF
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again and again, it would be helpful to actually read the text of the citations.
  1. This is not Jewish-American culture, not Jewish-American ethnicity, and not Jewish-American religion. It's merely poverty.
  2. Jews participated in boxing because they were from "impoverished urban ghettos", and "[s]hocked first-generation Jews who regarded boxing as antithetical to Jewish religious teachings and traditions."
  3. The first section is titled "The Anglo-American Boxing Heritage". Jewish-Americans were accepted by integrating with Anglo-Americans. We need to categorize that?
  4. Likewise, an entire book is written about Jews Entering the American Mainstream: "baseball became an avenue by which Jewish immigrants could assimilate into American culture." We need to categorize that?
  5. The examples of WP:OCEGRS literally say we do not categorize Jewish mathematicians, nor sportspeople by religion.
  6. This constant "othering" of Jewish-Americans is not a good look.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, treated as a set by sources. --Mvqr (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Being Jewish is ultimately ethnic, because for many centuries European Jews were largely endogamous. Describing someone as Jewish-American is thus little different from saying that they are of Spanish or French descent, which we commonly do in relevant cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 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.

Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.
Delete where already categorized by line. Upmerge where the stations are not already in another subcategory.
See recent:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Underground" is not always a "poor translation of subway" - that is a very American English-centric position (most varieties of English do not use the word "subway" in that context, let alone other languages). In some cases "Underground" is the proper name of the system, e.g. London Underground. Separately from that in some contexts, whether a station is above or below ground is defining - for example in UK fire regulations stations that are "substantially enclosed" (i.e. below ground, cut-and-cover or similar) are required to be staffed at all times. Whether this is defining in a Wikipedia context I don't know, but the nomination is inappropriately dismissive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case the usage of "underground" is very confusing when breaking this down further in "underground underground" stations and "underground above ground" stations. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- See my comment on London Underground for yesterday's sibling nom. Subway is an American term for an underground railway, but in British English it is a footpath going through a tunnel under a road. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 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.

Category:Stereotypes of East Asians[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 07:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parallel categories that are not about a specific nationality. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 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:Public domain characters in the United States[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 07:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the characters. Fram (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It may not be a defining characteristic, but it is an increasingly topical and widely discussed one, with more characters entering the public domain every January 1, including the initial versions of characters as famous as Winnie-the-Pooh and (next year) Mickey Mouse, as well as every detail about Holmes and Watson that Conan Doyle ever wrote now being public domain. Gildir (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good argument to have an article about PD characters in the US, but doesn't indicate how it is an important characteristic for most of these. If kept, it should be restricted to articles where this aspect is discussed as an important topic, not added to hundreds or thousands of articles where this is obvious and not important (from Alice of Alice in Wonderland, to European comics no one in the US has even heard of). And if this one is kept, why not the same category for every major country on earth? I mean, Carlotta (The Phantom of the Opera) is probably PD in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, ... as well, no? Or Athos (character), Bibi Fricotin, Roderick Glossop or Geppetto? Fram (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecesary.Wikieditor9117 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It doesn't need to be a defining characteristic to be an important one. We have, for example, Category:Public domain comics and that's not a defining characteristic of any comics either, but it's still a useful category. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, categories have to be defining characteristics of the articles included in it, per WP:NONDEFINING. I wasn't aware of that other category, it probably needs deletion as well but that will be a separate discussion. Fram (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Especially, no reason to single out the US over, say, Mexico. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be agreement here that this is not defining but maybe it's interesting? That's not how we do categories but sounds like maybe an article would fill that interest. (No objection to administrative categories for public domain though, if needed.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 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.

Category:2022 Marathi-language films[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: speedy delete. Deleted CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have any scheme in place of comprehensively subcategorizing films for the combination of language with individual year of release -- films-by-language categories are subcatted by decade, not by individual year. so this category has absolutely no siblings at all for any other year or any other language. Even worse, somebody's further tried to start triple-intersecting this with a "2022 Marathi-language genre films" subcategory tree which has absolutely no precedent for it at all either (but has already been shitcanned with categoryredirects.)
With just 49 articles in the parent category and 31 in the child, and some duplicate categorization between the two for a total of less than 80 films across the pair, this tree just isn't large enough to need unique new subcategorization schemes that other "decade + language films" categories aren't getting -- if this is ever desired, it will have to be implemented across the board in all language categories, and Marathi films don't need special treatment ahead of much, much larger language categories. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 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:Latin American 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT recent proliferation of tiny categories with unusual and irrelevant hierarchical organization. Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by continent encapsulating by country. Leads to abominations above, such as Latin Americans of Latin American descent.
Same progenitor as:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Category:American sportspeople of European descent
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while e.g. Category:Argentine sportspeople of Italian descent are more arguable, the nominated categories are merely container categories not leading to improved navigation. Especially the last three are pretty absurd. Finally, as we normally break down by continent, this should have been South American instead of Latin American, but similar South American categories are nominated on tomorrow's log page for the same reasons as before. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It might be worth keeping the first and merging all the rest inot it. Most are SMALLCATs, which we habitually upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 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.

Category:People from Mansour district[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 07:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, on a characteristic that isn't clearly WP:DEFINING. We do not currently have a scheme of subdividing residents of Baghdad by which particular part of the city they live in, and if anybody wanted to start one now it would have to be done a lot more comprehensively than just one person. No upmerging needed, as the sole entry is already in an appropriate "Occupation from Baghdad" subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree. As the category creator, I have no objection. I didn't realise this was a subdivision of an existing "people from...". CT55555(talk) 04:10, 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:Rural area in Rajasthan[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 07:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Functionally redundant category with subjective inclusion criteria, and no precedent elsewhere. All of the contents here are described and categorized in their articles as villages, not as "rural areas", and Wikipedia has no other category for "rural areas" anywhere else in the world -- this recent creation is literally the only "rural area" category that exists at all, and there's no useful reason to start a comprehensive scheme now.
Everything here is already filed in an appropriate "Villages in relevant district" category, so no upmerging is needed -- but since they're already categorized as villages, there's absolutely no need to also categorize them as "rural area" at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with everything that Bearcat has stated Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unclear in scope and probably redundant with the village category. Pichpich (talk) 19:03, 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:Military equipment 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one list. This would be fine if there were five or six things to file here, but using it just to categorize one list is not aiding navigation. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 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:Rice School of Architecture faculty[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 08:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two people, on a distinction that isn't normally part of Wikipedia's categorization schemes. We do not normally subcategorize university professors for individual department that they teach in -- with occasional exceptions for departments with a lot of notable faculty (i.e. far more than two), we just have one category per university without dozens of subcategories to segregate them by department. So this would be fine if there were a lot of people to categorize here, but is not necessary for just two. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. Rice School of Architecture isn't an individual department. It has its own dean, its own departments, and whatever else being a school entails. There are many universities that have faculty separated by School in order to avoid overflow within a categorization. Some quick wikipedia-ing has allowed this list to grow from 2 to 9. Other examples of subcategories within faculty include:
  2. Per WP:SMALLCAT Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. I imagine that this is a category with potential to grow as more hires are made and former faculty retire.
  3. I think additional subcategorizations are incredibly helpful in this case. It's an easy way to explore the history of a specific college that students might one day be interested in joining rather than going through the entire faculty list of the university.
(Sidenote: I can't seem to get this entire comment to appear!) Wozal (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed your formatting.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, that "realistic potential for growth" clause in SMALLCAT only kicks in if said potential is imminent. That is, it's not enough that there could theoretically be three more articles added to the category someday — anybody could say that about literally any small category, thus rendering SMALLCAT completely unenforceable. So the prospect for expansion has to be measurable as a short-term immediate project quantifiably deliverable in weeks, not theoretical speculation that might not be fulfilled for years or decades. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 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:North American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Category:North American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin

Category:Classical musicians associated with the BBC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Category:Classical musicians associated with the BBC

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_12&oldid=1134888593"