Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 2

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Namiba (talk | contribs) at 15:54, 6 November 2019 (→Category:Yoruba farmers: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

Category:Journalism by genre

Nominator's rationale: Unclear what the difference between a type and a genre is in journalism. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journalism genres

Nominator's rationale: Hard to see a distinction. No definition offered for either category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine web media

Nominator's rationale: We dont have any other categories along the lines of "Fooish web media" as far as I know. Not clear how web media differ from websites. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist church buildings

Category:Buddhist scientists

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:EGRS, unrelated intersection between religion and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unrelated? WP:EGRS doesn't seem to be contrary to these categories, and I believe their inclusion under Category:Scientists by religion is just a valid as, for example, Category:Jewish scientists. --Invokingvajras(talk) 21:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." Being a scientist isn't any different from being sportspeople in this respect. We do not have Category:Christian scientists or Category:Muslim scientists either, for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'd like to point out that this problem does seem to follow for the other categories, as not all articles included are particularly relevant to the intersection of scientific occupation and religious affiliation (Jewish, either as a religion or ethnicity, seems to provide little weight on many of the persons listed). Although I would argue that one's religious affiliation may indeed play a role in performance of any area, as the ethics prescribed by a tradition may serve as inspiration for the person in question (Both Buddhism and Judaism, as far as I'm aware, encourage intellectual pursuits, which may serve as inspiration for an especially devout person). If an article includes this sort of information, it should remain relevant to the intersection. Perhaps some clean-up is in order. --Invokingvajras(talk) 20:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of UK MPs 2017–

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: Renamed following clear precedent, 2010-2015, 2015-2017. The only hesitations were in regard to the dissolution of parliament which has now happened. Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These lists cover the duration of the Parliament, which is being dissolved next week ahead of the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Thus the final and permanent name for the category should be "Lists of UK MPs 2017–2019". LukeSurl t c 17:12, 2 November 2019 (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:Chulalongkorn family

Nominator's rationale: "Chulalongkorn" is not recognised as the name of any family by any reliable source. The title is merely descriptive, and changing the word order would make the fact clearer. (An alternative suggestion is to upmerge to Category:Chakri dynasty and Category:Chulalongkorn, the latter of which has been recently created.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba farmers

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:EGRS. I can find no proof that this "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." TM 23:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category size is not in dispute. It's whether it passes WP:EGRS. If you have evidence that it does, please post here.--TM 13:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; even though it has many sibling categories in Category:Yoruba people by occupation, many of which might be justifiable, I agree that no justification has been offered for this one. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category should be kept like the others. I'm not just advocating for its existence because I created it along with its sibling categories several years ago: I have not objected to the nominator's past success in deleting related categories which I created because they became empty or were helpless before I knew what was going on. However, I have to state frankly what I see here. His proposed merging of this category is akin to disruption of Wikipedia even though some editors may not see it that way. He has neither stated any clear basis for the category failing WP: EGRS nor given any valid reason for singling it out of the category Farmers by ethnicity for merging. Eruditescholar (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. However, it is up to you to demonstrate why this particular intersection is a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, as requested by WP:EGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for mentioning other categories in the group is not intended to describe the proposed merging of Yoruba farmers (which happens to be the only one involved in this discussion among others) as only unfair, leading to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. For emphasis, the category Yoruba farmers is a unique cultural topic in its own right because it happens to be the only one which groups farmers of Yoruba ethnicity or descent irrespective of their nationality. Besides, it happens to be the only one that has ties to a specific ethnic group in Africa. The category African-American farmers also has ties to Africa but it is more generalized and restricted to the United States; it groups American farmers of African descent (American nationals descending from any of the African ethnic groups). The remaining categories in the category Farmers by ethnicity: New Zealand Māori farmers, Basque farmers and Asian-American farmers have no ties to Africa. Looking at it from another angle; All other categories except Yoruba farmers there have a direct Western link. The category Yoruba farmers is unique in its own right and passes WP:EGRS.-Eruditescholar (talk)
That's not what EGRS says nor how it works. I suggest that you read the policy before making an argument.--TM 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have read it. You are probably trying to counter my explanation because of the points I've raised against your proposed merging of this category. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are indirectly asserting that all Yoruba people are Nigerians. However, this is not the case. -Eruditescholar (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or from any other country if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say Keep, as I voted above. The Yoruba are an ethnic group, resident in a particular part of Nigeria. The alternative might be to restructure this as farmers from <state>. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, so that merging into a national category would loose the point of having a specific category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection needs to be notable. There is no proof that Yoruba farmers are distinct from farmers in other ethnic groups. African-Americans and Asian-Americans, for example, have a unique history of being denied access to land. There is even a Wikipedia article on this for African-Americans, and a similar article could and should be written for Asian-Americans. Could this be done for Yoruba farmers? It's on those who want to keep the category to demonstrate that such an article could be written.--TM 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be logical for you to affirm the existence of the categories African American farmers and Asian American farmers because you are American and you mostly edit American-related articles (most of which you are likely to be informed due to your background and prior knowledge). On the other hand, the same cannot be said with Nigerian farmers because it is glaring that your knowledge of Nigerian ethnic groups is limited. I also happen to be the creator of the category Nigerian farmers that you are proposing to merge with Yoruba farmers. If this merging was necessary, I would have done that a long time ago. Looking at from your perspective (as a foreigner; I understand that it can be difficult to ascertain the ethnicity of a Nigerian farmer by mere appearance). I don't support your notion that Yoruba farmers are not distinct from other ethnicities in Nigeria. There are many cultural differences which in totality serve as their defining characteristics as well. These cultural differences become more pronounced due to the fact that all the ethnic groups live in different parts of the country. They live in different climates, speak different languages, eat their local cuisine, wear their native attires, create their artworks, etc. Even their traditional belief system is also different. (The obvious exception is intermarriage; when a Nigerian from one ethnic group marries another from a different ethnic group or culturally assimilates into the other ethnic group).Eruditescholar (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying that every group is different from every other group. However, what I am referring to is a notable interesection per Wikipedia guidelines (which it still seems you are unfamiliar with despite editing on here for years). I will post here for your convenience: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one.

Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources. If this criterion has not been met, then the category essentially constitutes original research. Although there are exceptions, this will usually mean that categories relating to social or cultural subjects are more likely to be valid than others."--TM 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:People educated at Ysgol Aberconwy

Nominator's rationale: category with a single article that is unlikely to be expanded. Tknifton (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primary source digital libraries

Nominator's rationale: Completely undefined. Only 3 articles, all concerned with religious texts, but all in Category: American digital libraries Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of archive categories which I think contain original historical documents. but I'm not sure what an original historical document is in a digital context. And indeed I'm not sure what the difference is between a digital library and an online archive. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maharashtra MLAs 2014–

Nominator's rationale: The 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election is concluding, so the 2014 session is set to end. ミラP 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Simplified languages

Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same amount of articles, have the same meaning, etc. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio

Nominator's rationale: The category text and the parent categories make clear that this is specifically for broadcasting, but this category gets lots of things placed in it such as Category:Radio astronomy. After any rename further tidying up (possibly including renaming Category:Wireless or creating a more general Category:Radio) could be done. Renaming some of the subcategories could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that. However, what would then be the difference between Category:Wireless and Category:Radio? DexDor (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's probably better to turn Category:Radio into a dab page, linking to both Category:Radio broadcasting and to Category:Wireless. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be incorrect to make Category:Radio a disambiguation. Not all uses of radio involve broadcasting (one-way communications). See my comment below. Ikluft (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to make the Category:Radio broadcasting subcategory and then move to there broadcast-specific parts including the instruction that it's about broadcast. Then Category:Radio could shed the confusion that has already occurred by being about all topics that radio actually is. I'm willing to help with that once the CfR is over or withdrawn. Ikluft (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I found a categorization loop Category:Wireless -> Category:Radio -> Category:History of radio -> Category:Wireless. Since that doesn't depend on the CfR, I fixed it by removing Wireless from History of Radio. Ikluft (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. The terms “wireless” and “radio” have historically meant the same thing, but British use the former and Americans the latter. More recently, “wireless” has been universally applied to describe modern digital technologies like WiFi and mobile devices. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on radio and wireless show there's enough overlap for both to be subcategories of Category:Telecommunications but enough difference not to merge them. Radio has specific meaning to usage of the electromagnetic spectrum between 30Hz to the lower boundary of light at 300GHz. Wireless has a lot of colloquial uses related to not having wires. Specifically wireless can include light (i.e. infrared, laser, etc) and near-field communication which are not radio. Just about any "wireless X" category could be a subcategory or within the category tree under Wireless, influenced by the heavy weight of existing usage. Both categories should rely on their main articles for their definitions. It's OK for something to be categorized under both, such as cell phones. Both are big topics - wireless would almost certainly need to be marked with {{category diffuse}}, and maybe radio too. Ikluft (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unknown origin craters

Nominator's rationale: small category and miscellaneous category. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the 2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?) Ikluft (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subsidence craters

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and insignificant subset of Category:explosion craters. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the 2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?) Ikluft (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorsports portals

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Portal:Formula One. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket portals

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Portal:Cricket. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right here, SMcC. Category:Cricket added to the nom as a merge target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian female comics artists

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-deleted, G7 - sole author requested deletion. Grutness...wha? 15:24, 2 November 2019 (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/2019_November_2&oldid=924893799"