Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearcat (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 27 August 2019 (→Category:Transgender women). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24

Category: Kopitar family

Nominator's rationale: -- WP:SMALLCAT. There are only three notable members of this Slovenian family, each known for their contributions to hockey. Anze Kopitar has two very young children who won't be notable anytime soon. Is a category really needed here? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

Nominator's rationale: WP:PARENDIS. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category (and other similar ones) should be moved as well, but one has to start somewhere. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I see a whole bunch of related articles were moved recently to follow the proposed format. I don't know if there was consensus for this. I would be against renaming the category (and the articles) since the title could be misleading, suggesting we are discussing a worldwide organisation with a UK branch rather than a UK organisation that is independent of its international counterparts. This is Paul (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started moving some of these articles because I thought the old title was misleading. Unnaturally putting (UK) in the middle suggests that the name of the party is Labour Party (UK), which it is not. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Category names#General conventions says that normal policy on article titles should apply. And policy on parenthetical disambiguation is to put it at the end. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main article for Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election is 2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK). Matching the category to the article is the reason for this requested move. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

Nominator's rationale: WP:PARENDIS. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food studies journals

Nominator's rationale: The term 'Food Science' would be better/more accurate for this category than 'Food Studies', also to be consistent with the main article.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laureates of the Prince Claus Award

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, the people in this category are not specifically notable for this award, in the articles the receipt of the award is mentioned merely in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in Manassas Park, Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Category and its subcategory contains only 1 article. TM 13:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harmon prize winners

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, some articles like Benjamin Griffith Brawley do not even mention the award at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The reasons I created this cat are because 1) it is of significant historical value, and 2) many sources that mention this award, and thus (at least formerly; I cleaned them years ago) some Wikipedia articles, report winners incorrectly. [That is, they say "Person A" won it, when he or she actually did not.] One such error was in a book by Cornel West IIRC. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about category policy. The category is useful. It helps prevent misinformation.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (NONDEF etc). Having a category tag on articles that don't even mention the characteristic (and hence it's unreferenced) is neither useful nor a way to prevent misinformation. If the category creator wishes to put information (e.g. person X won prize Y) into a more database (machine-readable) system there's WikiData. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be trivially easy to ADD a mention of the award, but I am on a train typing on a cellphone. If it is not mentioned in the article, it really should be. The award is historically significant. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong way to think about categorization. An article might contain, for example, 100 facts about the subject and maybe there's another 100 facts that could be added, but that doesn't mean the article should be in 100-200 categories. See WP:NONDEFINING. DexDor (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research the topic. For some of these unsung Black American artists, winning the Harmon prize is the only thing potentially rescuing them from undeserved anonymity and oblivion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JVP insurrections in film

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT; besides the films aren't really about the insurrections. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genting Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article Rathfelder (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aldehydic acids

Nominator's rationale: The category only has one member, which is already separately categorized under Category:Benzoic acids and Category:Benzaldehydes. Also, the category has no main article, and there is no page with the name Aldehydic acid. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this category is for carboxylic acids that are also aldehydes. There are several well known substances that have not yet been added in yet. And I am sure there are many lesser known materials. It would also be determined by the intersection of two other categories; but that is not a reason for deleting. The lack of a parent article is just because no one has written or yet, not because of absence of notability. But the main reason for the categorization is to break up otherwise huge categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

Nominator's rationale: Match title format in category. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to collect together exclusively non-European, mostly indigenous societies that have practiced cannibalism (or allegedly practiced cannibalism) at some point in their history. I think the term "tribal" carries a loaded, pejorative, stigmatizing connotation in this context and thus the word should be removed. Personally, I think the category should be deleted altogether and turned into an article or list, but that suggestion was voted down in 2008, so that's a debate for another time. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientific racism

Nominator's rationale: This is a biased, pejorative term that serves no purpose in this encyclopedia except Marxist-Lysenkoist far-left POV pushing. Science is and has always been a detached and objective pursuit and does not and has never included any component of racial hatred that would ratify its putative status as "racism". I find particularly perturbing the category's characterization as "pseudoscience" (always a term to use with caution) and "obsolete theories". Clearly, the category is populated with enough "scientific racists" who believe in "scientific racism" as to render their enterprise as something other than "obsolete". Delete. HRKent444 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender women

Nominator's rationale: This recently created category is redundant to Category:Transgender and transsexual women and/or Category:Trans women. (Please note that it contains only two items at present, both of which are also in the "transgender and transsexual women" category.) Cheers, gnu57 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We should strongly consider moving "Transgender and transsexual women" to just "transgender women", per the evolution in best-practices terminology for writing about trans issues that's taken place since the existing category was first created, but creating the desired term as a duplicate of the existing category, without actually doing anything about the existing category at all, is not the way to go about making that happen. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_24&oldid=912753826"