Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 7

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul 012 (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 8 October 2024 (→‎Transgender by country: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 6
October 8 >

October 7

Category:Sega Games franchises

Nominator's rationale: "Sega Games" is not even its own thing, it literally just refers to Sega. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reports on FOO

Nominator's rationale: Siblings are Category:Reports on finance and business. The rename makes it clearer that the subject matter of the report is education, rather than a report that educates or is a school assignment. For Health, the rename broadens the category to be more usable Mason (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital currency exchanges

Nominator's rationale: Cryptocurrency exchanges is the common term and matches with our Wikipedia article. Gheus (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loss of Canadian citizenship by prior Nazi affiliation

Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely awkwardly named. I've made a tentative attempt, but I'd be really open to alternatives. Mason (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine with me. Mason (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European theatre of World War II people

Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of these categories are not defined by the European theater of ww2 or Pacific theater. These are primarily people who are European or Asian nationals, but not associated with the specific military campaign. If not merged, it should be purged of nationals. Mason (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you mean that it's acceptable to associate people with a war but not with a military campaign? The problem is the original categorization of World War II people was too confusing and full of redundancy. In my opinion, the 'theater' categorization is merely a categorization by region to clarify the category and make it show what are the most important and relevant under the subject. Aronlee90 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not associated with a campaign. Jews of World War II‎ are not defined by the European military campaign. You're conflating region with military campaign. Not everyone in a region is associated with the war. If you wanted to break it down by region. What about Europeans who fought in the pacific? Would they go in both campaigns? This just doesn't seem helpful for navigation as it conflates several category trees.Mason (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus to merge; discussion on that point as well as Mason's alternative suggestion to purge nationals would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: the Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping. All subcategories are already in Category:Populated places in West Asia. Sakakami (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to tag Category:Populated places in West Asia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centuries in the Southern Nigeria Protectorate

Nominator's rationale: delete, the Southern Nigeria Protectorate mainly existed within one century, all content is already in the two decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of statutory instruments of the Welsh Assembly

Category:Fictional populated places in Mexico

Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is not about a fictional location, but a short story. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional jackals

Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles that are about fictional jackals, the rest are either works that should not belong in a fictional character category, or are redirects. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at Yankee Stadium

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, we do not categorize events by the venues they were held at. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Morley–Ellenbrook line

Nominator's rationale: The main page has been moved due to a name change, so the category should be too. Steelkamp (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the operator of the line https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/news/latest-news/hello-ellenbrook-line agrees with that JarrahTree 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

Nominator's rationale: This trust has now been merged and renamed, see the article at Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Elshad (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases and disorders

Nominator's rationale: This was moved to the current name via a 2008 decision with very little discussion. However, the main article is disease, not diseases and disorders. This makes the category not match the article. I believe it should be moved back to the broader "Disease" to match the main article, which does not only include individual diseases but also the entire topic of disease. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category tree is suppose to include chronic disorders, not just diseases. Mason (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason: The article disease states that a disorder is a form of disease. Disorder (medicine) is not an article. That means the current title is redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This rename makes it seem like you're removing disability and related concepts from the tree. Even if that isn't your intent, I see no advantage to this rename beyond brevity. I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities. Moreover, I do not want to have to argue that Autism is a disease rather than a neurological difference. Mason (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity is established Wikipedia policy, see WP:CONCISE. On the other hand, having something not cause offense to people is not. In fact the opposite is true, see WP:NOTCENSORED. So if the argument is that classifying many things under a disease banner will cause offense, it isn't really a policy-based reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have missing my point. @Zxcvbnm I am trying to avoid have people misunderstand the category. "I actipate numerous removals of people with disabilities from the child categories, as well as the removal of chronic disabilities." This means that I expect many people to misunderstand that disease includes disorders. And I do not want to have to explain to people that over and over again that this definition is broad. WP:CONCISE says that the goal is to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." What I am saying is that the new name does not provide sufficient information, and that for example, Autism is not some term people intuitive consider a disease. Mason (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AAGPBL teams

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and one category in each. Already covered by other categories so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, in that sense you can make one for every team, plus a category for managers, but I don't think that will be good for navigation at all since only one team - the Rockford Peaches - was around long enough to have at least five managers. As I noted, these are all well covered with other categories in Category:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League so why keep?
@Marcocapelle, what do you think? I know you changed your vote but still. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations

Nominator's rationale: This name is *really* confusing. I suggest changing it from occupation to (people) to make it clearer that this is about individuals. I'm very open to alternatives. Mason (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Asian actors

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The practically same category was deleted un British actors of Asian descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20#Category:British_people_by_ethnicity_and_occupation Pinging @LaundryPizza03: from last discussion. Mason (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor disputes in Ghana

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now: Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Updated the target after the speedy move).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ghana is a distinct country and has a specific strike within the category. I think it would be damaging to remove this category and to try to homogeneous it with the broader continent of africa. The lack of more then one strike is more reflective of a systematic bias towards focusing on north america and europe rather than a lack of historical strikes. Thanks, User:LoomCreek (talk)
  • That bias will probably exist, but the only remedy is having more articles about the topic. As long as that is not the case the category is just a hindrance in finding related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are now two articles in the category, the Positive Action campaign which involved a nationwide general strike in 1950 and a played a critical role in Ghana's independence years later. I plan to expand the article to cover all the specifics around it. So I think at this point removing the category would most definitely be detrimental.- LoomCreek (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many tiny categories in this tree. Nothing is findable right now. You're welcome to make continental categories if you think that would help. But I think your time is better spent crafting articles. Mason (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern United States independence activists

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be highly overlapping Mason (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender by country

Nominator's rationale: Following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:Transgender in Russia, it seems the problem is Transgender being an adjective, rather than a noun word or noun phrase. Then I think transness is a good alternative solution, as that's the most accepted noun for transgenderness in English, similar to the Francophone equivalents transidentity (transidentité) or transitude, which are less common in English. Another option would be "Transgender topics", which would be more recognizable. --MikutoH talk! 01:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative - either Transgender topics or Transgender people. I definitely don’t like transness - as the dictionary entry says, it’s about a condition and that just sounds worse, being transgender isn’t a condition defined by one’s transness, which is why it’s also listed as synonymous with other such terms that are similarly considered to be pejorative nowadays. Raladic (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support transness I don't see a good alternative to that that makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but oppose the name "Transness". It's unclear to people who are not familiar with the topic. Either of the alternatives are fine with me, such as Transgender topics in FOO, Transgender rights in FOO, etc. I'd need convincing for Transgender people in FOO because it will get mixed up with FOOian transgender people (a.k.a. nationals of a country who are trans. Mason (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it may suggest but so would these. --MikutoH talk! 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Would you want to change those categories to Womenness? I think that Transgender topics is a better solution than Tranness. Mason (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, prefer transgender topics for now. The adjective has bugged me for some time, but I haven't been able to come up with a better term myself. Transness is too specific and rather obscure. I thought of Transgender issues in Foo, but that conveys a non-neutral tone. Topics sounds a bit meta/redundant (every Wikipedia category covers a topic), but is probably the best option, unless someone can come up with something else. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for transgender topics in lieu of a better suggestion. Both the current titles and transness are confusing titles, with the latter being just an obscure neologism.
  • Support Transgender people in Foo. It would be consistent with Category:Women by country, which uses Women in Foo and not Women's topics in Foo. 1857a (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Transgender people in Foo per 1857a. That is in inescapably the best and clearest description of the unifying topic of the subcategories and articles these categories contain. Transgender history is the history of transgender people, transgender rights are the rights of transgender people, etc. The category description can specify to use the Fooian transgender people subcategory for individual biographies.--Trystan (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transgender topics for now. Language is evolving quickly here so we may have to revisit this, but this seems like the clearest and neutralist terminology for now. (Open to altnernatives except for "transness" which seems unclear to me.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local politicians by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Consistensy with (grand)parents, some cousins/siblings, and some children. --MikutoH talk! 01:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've made a couple of minor modifications to fix obvious spelling errors ("Keynian" instead of "Kenyan", "New Zealan" instead of "New Zealand", "Belguian" instead of "Belgian"), but otherwise I'm neutral on this. As long as it's consistent one way or the other, I don't really care all that strongly which form is used. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I apologize for the mistakes. However, New Zealand is the adjective for NZ people: Category:New_Zealand_politicians. We need to rename the entire category tree if that's right. --MikutoH talk! 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. But you typed "Zealan", as in without the d on the end of it. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOps sorry I confused it. Yeah it was a typo, my keyboard may have eaten it. --MikutoH talk! 02:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination appear to be based on the expectation that, for example, Category:Local politicians in Ireland is intended as a set of local politicians from Ireland. When, as far as I can tell, it is a set of local politicians in Ireland. (Citizenship and nationality are not, presumably, the same thing as representation or location. In Ireland, for example, while local representatives must be "ordinarily resident in Ireland" (..) "You do not have to be an Irish citizen".) Are we happy that all of the members of all of these categories are grouped by nationality (as implied by the nom). And not by location/representation (as implied by the category names)? In short, are "local politicians by nationality" the same as "local politicians by nation"? (I'm not personally sure they are...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose
    1. Country is not the same as nation.
    2. as noted above, the current categories are about politicians in a country, not from a country (or nation)
    3. Specific to Australia, Local government in Australia is a thing. I'd read "local politicians" as being the ones who live near me (or the people they represent) rather than living near where parliament sits or being "parachuted in" to a safe seat. That is particularly about state and federal politicians, local government is much more local in Australia, particularly in some states.
--Scott Davis Talk 11:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For previous similar discussions, see:
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed Italian fascists

Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge. Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, nationality, and political orientation. Notably, there's no Category:Executed fascists category tree. Mason (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of these people were executed not for ideology alone. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MikutoH talk! 02:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_7&oldid=1250039695"