Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

edit

Indigenous in Canada

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. bibliomaniac15 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "indigenous" is not used as a proper noun here. The last category was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • It is a group for constitutional purposes. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 protects the rights of "aboriginal peoples", which is defined to include "Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples". In the 38 years since the Act came into force, "Indian" has been gradually replaced by "First Nation" and "aboriginal" by "Indigenous" (as a matter of style and usage in both cases), but in Canadian law, "Indigenous peoples" is a recognised category, which includes the three different groups of "Indigenous peoples." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Catgory:Indigenous military personnel from Canada? It's a bit tighter, and complies with the style guide from the federal government, para. 14.12, cited below.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please click on the existing category to see several examples. The reason this particular category is notable in Canada is that it highlights an issue, namely that some Indigenous people and organisations take the position that they are not Canadians, because they have retained their pre-contact sovereignty, but other Indigenous individuals are willing to join the Canadian Armed Forces, which might be seen as a recognition of Canadian sovereignty, or possibly a recognition of dual sovereignty and dual identity. In short, this category is connected to some pretty complicated issues of sovereignty and identity, and should be kept. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)}
4.11 Races, languages and peoples
...
Capitalize the singular and plural forms of the nouns Status Indian, Registered Indian, Non-Status Indian and Treaty Indian, as well as the adjectives Indigenous and Aboriginal, when they refer to Indigenous people in Canada.
14.12 Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Stereotyping, Identification of groups
Be aware of the current self-identification preferences of racial and cultural groups in Canada:
...
  • Indigenous people(s) in Canada, not Indigenous Canadians
Note also that the terms used to designate the Indigenous peoples of Canada have undergone considerable change in recent years. Although the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, uses the term aboriginal peoples in the lower case, the words Aboriginal and Indigenous have since come to be capitalized when used in the Canadian context. The terms currently preferred are the following:
  • Indigenous people(s)
  • First people(s)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (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:Mathematics paradoxes

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. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Style. Also unification with Category:Physical paradoxes and Category:Statistical paradoxes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, maybe I am making things too difficult, so let it be clear that I am not voting for or against anything. I had in mind there would be a difference between an academic field and the subject of that academic field. E.g. Category:Economics paradoxes would contain paradoxes in economic theory, such as Bertrand paradox (economics), versus Category:Economic problems which are real life problems which are analyzed in economics. But admittedly, Category:Economics paradoxes contains both theoretical paradoxes ("economics paradoxes") and real life paradoxes ("economic paradoxes") and I do not think that we need to split these paradoxes categories. On top of that, my knowledge of mathematics (which this nomination is about) is not of the same level as of economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (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:Nicktoonists

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neologism title; also unnecessary to further subcategorize from its parent Category:Nickelodeon people. Trivialist (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2020 (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:Burgundian kings

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. bibliomaniac15 21:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Kingdom of the Burgundians and List of Kings of Burgundy#Kings of the Burgundians. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2020 (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:British laws

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 to Category:Laws in the United Kingdom. bibliomaniac15 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with Law of the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2020 (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.

x-century media

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 to Category:16th century in mass media, etc. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Both decades in media and years in media use the style of "x in media". For example Category:1880s in media and Category:1880 in media. See full lists in Category:Media by decade and Category:Media by year. These 7 are the only ones not WP:CONSISTENT with the rest of the set. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2020 (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:Family of Augustus

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: move subcategories to Category:Augustus, then delete. There are no clear boundaries as to what constitutes Augustus' family and what not. Augustus' mother, half-sister, aunt and cousin are in this category, and ultimately we might add everyone of the Julio-Claudian dynasty to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2020 (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:Media by decade

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. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both Category:Mass media by century and Category:Media by year have one category for years and topics. I personally also don't understand the distinction of the scopes of "Mass media by decade" and "Media by decade". Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2020 (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:Recipients of the Honorary Award of the President of Ukraine

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. However, following the text of the Order of Merit article, I have added Boiko into Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine). – Fayenatic London 10:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
We have a brief description of this short lived award at Order of Merit (Ukraine)#The Honorary Award of the President of Ukraine but it gives no hint of why this award was issued. The only thing we have in this category is Vitaliy Boiko whose article doesn't even mention this award. I can't definitively say that this award is non-defining but there is nothing in English Wikipedia that even hints that it might be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (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:Recipients of the Air Gallantry Cross

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
The Air Gallantry Cross was issued by South Vietnam and may have been defining for Vietnamese military pilots who received it but sources don't seem to be available, at least online in English, for those Vietnamese recipients. According to the main article, "pilots of the United States Air Force were often awarded the Air Gallantry Cross" as a de facto campaign medal. Those American articles are all we have in this category and are already well categorized under Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War and I listified the contents of the category here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of of this award was for gallantry for Vietnamese pilots and I suspect it is likely defining for those anonymous people, none of which are in this category. My suspicion is that the South Vietnamese award information was either destroyed or intentionally not shared by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam given how little information there is on many of them, but that's my own speculation. (In general, there are a lot of secondary and tertiary gallantry awards I would not find defining as well as countless awards that were intended to be gallantry awards but were handed out like candy in practice.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gallantry medal, whoever it's awarded to. Awarded for achievement. Not just awarded for serving in a campaign or being unfortunate enough to be wounded. We keep categories for such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how that's relevant. Most of our many thousands of articles on people with gallantry awards do not specify exactly why they got it; only that they did, because the actual full citations are often hard to come by. Nor do I see why a category for recipients of a perfectly legitimate gallantry medal should be deleted because its only occupants thus far are foreigners. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, are you actually advocating deletion of gallantry medal categories on every article that doesn't include the actual citation? That, if I may say so, is one of the most ludicrous comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Of course gallantry medals are defining. In Britain and the Commonwealth we even put their initials after people's names for the rest of their lives. If that's not defining I don't know what is. Yet, the actual citation is very rarely available as it is rarely included in, say, the London Gazette, although the announcement of the award is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Many people have received gallantry decorations from foreign countries. It doesn't make them any less valid. And now you seem to be saying that gallantry medals aren't defining outside the Commonwealth. Of course they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with many state medals is that the stated purpose often doesn't match how the medal is issued in practice. To me, that means you need to go through the biography articles to get a clearer sense of how defining a medal is rather than relying exclusively on the title/contents of the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2020 (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/2020_April_4&oldid=952908910"