Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 5 February 2019 (→Category:Revival movements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

Category:Vaccine controversies

Nominator's rationale: To match main parent article vaccine hesitancy, recently renamed in line with WHO and other sources. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biodiversity hotspots

Nominator's rationale: Being a biodiversity hotspot is non-defining for many of the articles in this category (e.g. Andes or Caucasus).  Being a biodiversity hotspot is either subjective or is based on a published list in which case it's much better stored in wp as a list (example) than as a category.
See CFD for a somewhat similar category Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_27#Category:Endemic_regions. DexDor (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American supercentenarians

Nominator's rationale: There is no good reason to single out african americans by age. We have a parent cat for Super old Americans that works just fine. This goes back to how the 110Club forum categorizes people into four big groups by color (one of which is Latios, which is not a color, but that is another story). Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 13 articles, this is by far the biggest category of the recent batch of supercentenarian categories nominated at CFD. Any objection which relates specifically to categorising African-Americans by longevity would apply also to Category:African-American centenarians, which has not been nominated. However, given the adverse historical status of African-Americans, it is unsurprising that there is a significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans. So the nominatpor's assertion that there is no good reason to single out african americans by age sounds glib and un-researched. I am well aware of the extent of GRG-cruft around, because a decade ago I initiated the efforts to stop the flood and clean it up; but when I see that a CFD nomination is based on a demonstrable false assertion like this one, I do wonder how much rigour is being applied to the cleanup. "GRG made it, so it must be bad" is not good criterion.
    If, despite the scholarly notability of the topic, editors prefer not to keep the the category, then alternatively Merge to both parents: Category:American supercentenarians and Category:African-American centenarians. The nom @Legacypac gives no justification for this proposal to remove these people from the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any scholarly research on African American super centurions specifically. The cat and universe of potential study subjects is just small. No one is lookkng at the 100 year old articles which presumably exist because the people are otherwise notable beyond being old. Anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: A centurion was a professional officer of the Roman army. We are discussing centenarians, i.e. people who have reached 100 years of age. The fact that you refer twice to something different doesn't give me confidence in your knowledge of the research base ... and your attempt to claim that there isn't specific research on African American super centurions misses the point that there is study on African-American longevity, and this is a significant subset of that group.
Your reply also shows a misunderstanding of how en.wp categories work. The current situation is that all the articles in Category:African-American supercentenarians are already in a Category:African-American centenarians through being in a subcat thereof. A reader who visits Category:African-American centenarians can browse the the supercentenarians by visiting the subcat. This is similar to how. e.g. Category:People from Berlin, Wisconsin is a subcat of Category:People from Green Lake County, Wisconsin.
Your proposal to simply delete Category:African-American supercentenarians without merging to its parents therefore removes the articles from its parents categories. Your nomination gives no reason to do so, and your reply also gives no reason.
Your comment that anyone in this cat could be added to the African American centurion cat if someone cares is disgraceful: it is not up to other editors to tidy up the mess caused by your unjustified removal of articles from a category in which they belong; and your dismissal of it by the remark if anyone cares conveys a disdain either for the integrity of category system or for the topic of longevity in African-American people. Neither sentiment should have any place in the categorisation of any topic on Wikipedia; if you don't care enough about any topic to handle its categories properly, then you should refrain from tinkering with those categories. Your "don't care" efforts here are starting to look like wilfully disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely work with cats and consider them overly complex and often useless. These are some of the most useless and racist I've seen hence the nomination to delete them. Attacks on my knowledge are misplaced - you don't know me or my interests or how widely I read. Centenarians is a strange word and I'm sorry I misspelled it inadvertently with autocorrect. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: You are quite entitled to consider categories useless, if you choose to do so. However, unless and until there is a WP:Consensus to remove the category system, please do not disrupt it.
I have no information on your state of knowledge other that what you chose to display here, and I make no judgement on anything other than what you have chose to display here, which is unimpressive.
Your latest remark that these categories are racist is extraordinary. In what ways is it racist?
Do you believe that significant scholarly literature on the topic of longevity in African-Americans? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl I operated at MfD and AfD where deletion is almost always the discussion. This merging of categories is very new to me, in an area I don't worry about much or find very useful. You have been nothing but condescending; dismissive and rude to me as a CfD newcomer just trying to clean up a mess in one topic area. Enjoy ruling your little area of Wikipedia. I doubt I'll bother to come back to CfD. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents Category:American supercentenarians and Category:African-American centenarians. I stand by my above point, but merging makes more sense then someone having to go back and add the pages to these categories. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that African-American supercentenarians are somehow not African-American centenarians? Or that they are not American supercentenarians? Because deletion is a valid option only if you believe both those things to be true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one nominated the even more silly centenarians categories only because no one was looking at such pages. The Supercentarians pages generally exist only because the people got over 110 while the 100+ year old people with pages presumably are notable for other reasons and just happened to live past 100. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Legacypac: You are quite entitled to regard any set of categories as silly, if you want to. However, decisions on on en.wp are made by WP:CONSENSUS, not by one editor's views. So unless and until there is a consensus to delete the centenarian categories, there is no grounds to remove from them the oldest members of that set, as you are determined to do. And this CFD does not propose deleting Category:African-American centenarians, so there is no reason to depopulate it.
In my discussions with @Newshunter12, they expressed similar views, and I made the same response: legitimate view, but needs a CFD to achieve consensus. However, the primitive category software makes constructing a big group CFD nomination a daunting task. I don't like that: technical barriers should not be an impediment to consensus-building. If you have a case to make, it should be discussed.
So I have offered at User talk:Newshunter12#Age-related_categories_in_general to construct a large group CFD nomination of longevity categories on the basis of whatever rationale the nominator wishes to make. That offer is open to you too: if you want to propose the deletion of all centenarian categories, I will help you to do so. I probably will not support the proposal, but I will help you to make the proposal.
Meanwhile, no such proposal has been made at CFD, let alone agreed up on. So please don't pre-empt the outcome of such a discussion by disrupting categories which have not even been nominated for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category - if someone wants to recategorize great. Have at it. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games by island country of setting

Nominator's rationale: Given that we have Category:Video games by country of setting, this is a non-defining characteristic for the categories it contains. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peerages with only two holders

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Follows on from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 11#Peerage titles with only one holder. Opera hat (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebbar Iyengars

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by caste. See User:Sitush/Common#Castecats for some background on this. Sitush (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Revival movements

Nominator's rationale: This category has now become ill- and broadly-defined. It has a parent category of Category:Christian movements but then includes articles like Greek Revival architecture and LaRouche movement which are clearly not Christian movements. If anything that considers itself a "revival" or anyone who calls themselves a "revivalist" can be included, this category is so broad to be not very defining. As an alternative to being deleted, perhaps this category can just be pruned to only contain articles and categories that pertain to Christian revival movements but I wanted to get some feedback from the CfD crowd before undoing another editor's edits and purging this category. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_4&oldid=881923420"