Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19[edit]

Category:Red Dead Redemption[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) DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like an unnecessary subcategory when Category:Red Dead exists. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:54, 19 May 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:Non-white characters in video games[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. MER-C 17:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just feel like this serves little purpose, while inviting controversy. I haven't gone through all of the character articles that now have this, but I'm fairly sure race is never mentioned in them. And even it is was for a few of them, that doesn't mean we needed a category created for something that would be rarely mentioned and therefore not a major defining trait of the character. We already have the Category:Video game characters by nationality category that pretty much serve a similar (and more easily cited) purpose, and wouldn't we also need a "List of white people in video games" category to serve as a counterpoint if we kept this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-white =/= Asian, lol Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that name doesn’t work unless we decided to remove all the Black and Hispanic characters on the list.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that we should have each category for each ethnicity, rather than just "non-white". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete but I would consider it fair to classify characters known of certain racial makeup (not as generic as "non-white"). However, I fear that will lead to a lot of OR for category inclusion. --Masem (t) 17:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Video game characters by ethnicity" and create appropriate subcategories. I also disagree that race is "rarely a defining trait" for characters given the near-constant controversy over casting. Writers like Gita Jackson write about it all the time. The ability to see category numbers for this at a glance is useful data. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. There are many better ways to categorize fictional characters. DexDor (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there are probably fair points there. Rename to "Video game characters by ethnicity." I would disagree with the notion that it serves little purpose however; I think there is certainly a use for such a category (well, a better category than what I produced). Both in terms of people who want to improve articles relating to POC in games or people who want to find articles about POC in games. I also agree on the OR front, in which case there would just have to be an understanding that substantial sourcing has to be done to demonstrate it, in-universe proof, or official word. After all, we do have "Fictional black people" as a category, so logically, "Fictional black people in video games" should be an okay category to make. I know, "other stuff existing isn't proof," but I think if we accept it as a valid mode of categorization in general, the specific categorization for video games should be valid. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have Category:Video game characters by nationality with subcategories for Chinese, Japanese, Indian etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't serve much of a purpose. Plus there's already a category for video game characters based on nationality, making this more redundant than anything else. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Category:Video game characters by nationality already exists and is arguably the more comprehensive way of doing things. Also potential OR/SYNTH issues when RS don't mention the race of the character. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say that ethnicity is not the same as nationality, and I think that with the existence of "Fictional black people" (as an example), "Fictional black people in video games" is a valid category. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I will note the existence of ethnic-based subcats, such as Category:Fictional American people of Chinese descent in video games. The problem more with this specific category though is not the ethnic issue but that it is exclusionary in nature (i.e. a character has to be not white) rather than inclusionary (i.e. a character has to be black). To merit inclusion on "Fictional black people", all that's required is for a RS to refer to the character as black, while for this one a RS has to label the character as non-white or we risk running into OR/SYNTH issues or even WP:NONDEF. To give a somewhat related example, it's the same reason why we have Category:Female characters in video games and not, say, Category:Non-male characters in video games. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I agree that "non-white" was the wrong label to use for this. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. 1 Utterly vague concept. "White" and "non-white" are utterly cultural constructs, and working from a binary race definition is a 100% American thing. Wikipedia should have a worldwide view per WP:WORLDWIDE, not be promoting American concepts. Brazil for instance doesn't operate as much from the binary race concept. There's also issues of sourcing, as I'm not even sure most sources even discuss this. They might call a character "Asian" but is that "non-white"? Ever been to a far right or white nationalist discussion forum? They have endless discussions and fights over what is and what is not white, and it's all nonsense as there's so much grey area and overlap that a binary race definition is idiotic. So, I can imagine a character being from a nation, but then people endlessly debating whether they're "white" or "non-white". Lastly, it seems too niche a concept and could only apply to a few pages. I don't think we need this endless categorization of fictional characters. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a defining characteristic. I can think of many Japanese-designed characters who are racially ambiguous between white and Asian. Not a particularly helpful category and will spur disputes. TarkusABtalk 16:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think replacement categories for ethnicity would work because it is rarely specified in the source material. And we should not simply be guessing ethnicity based on nationality. Reach Out to the Truth 17:32, 22 May 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:American labor leaders[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:Leaders of American trade unions for now, as that seems to match the contents. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Removes some of the ambiguity and matches the British equivalent Category:Leaders of British trade unions. TM 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Labor leaders" is not the same thing as "Leaders of trade unions", it's a broader term. Also, we have both "trade unions" and "labor unions" here in the States. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anomalous+0: This may need some more explanation. What other labor leaders are out there apart from leaders of trade unions? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with waiting in the two cases below. However, this one should be renamed to either one, otherwise it will not be included in the necessary broader nomination as discussed below. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 19 June 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:Labor unionists from Illinois[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 (issue deferred to a standardization nomination). MER-C 09:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus re: preference for trade unionist label TM 16:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would also support renaming the other states. Oculi (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trade union just isn't a commonly used term in the United States. Labor unions is the term used almost always....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this requires a broader nomination concerning the whole trade unionists tree in the United States, preferably as an option A versus option B. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for a broader nomination with the aim of standardizing labor or trade union for the entire U.S. category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 17 June 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:American labor unionists by state[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 (issue deferred to a standardization nomination). MER-C 09:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was mentioned in a previous discussion but never formally nominated. Merge to match Category:American trade unionists. TM 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would also support renaming the other states which currently use 'labor unionists'. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trade union just isn't a commonly used term in the United States. Labor unions is the term used almost always....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this requires a broader nomination concerning the whole trade unionists tree in the United States, preferably as an option A versus option B. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I linked to in the rationale, this has already been discussed just a few months ago. While it did not attract much interest, this is where we are now. Regarding the use of "trade" vs. "labor" union in the US, let's look at the AFL-CIO Constitution. It does not use the phrase "labor union" once but uses "trade union" 8 times. The Dictionary of American History article on the AFL-CIO uses the phrase "trade union" 3x more than "labor union".--TM 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Large unions like the American Federation of Teachers' state of address don't mention trade union at all but instead say labor union. UAW constitution mentioned both labor and trade unions once. Americans refer to them as labor unions in news articles, textbooks, and everyday conversation. Amwisdx (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Labor unionist" returns 11,000 hits on Google. "Trade unionist" returns 990,000 hits. It is clear that while both are used, trade unionist is far, far more common.--TM 20:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're called labor unions in the US and trade unions across the world. This article is about American unionists, right? Lets leave it at labor. Amwisdx (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can state that if you wish, but the evidence doesn't show it.--TM 13:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for a broader nomination with the aim of standardizing labor or trade union for the entire U.S. category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 17 June 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:L.A. Noire[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) 04:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. L.A. Noire was a single game and therefore cannot be considered a franchise or requiring an entire category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are four substantial articles, which seems enough to make the category useful. On the other hand, they are already linked via the Rockstar Games template. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 4 articles seem like plenty to keep a category like this. It's also got potential for growth, as a sequel could still be made. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a single game though. One game and its spinoff articles doesn't require an entire category about it, it's not a series and didn't rise to global prominence. If and when a sequel is made, that can be re-evaluated (but I still think it wouldn't merit a category).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:28, 21 May 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:Video games based on Bone (comics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 28#Category:Video games based on Bone (comics)

Category:American people of Muhajir descent[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. Muhajir background is evidently significant within Pakistan, but has not been demonstrated to be WP:DEFINING in the Pakistani diaspora. The case where it matters, Altaf Hussain, is categorised as Muhajir people. Merging to "people of Pakistani descent" is not desirable, as the pages are also categorised as e.g. "Pakistani emigrants". – Fayenatic London 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Muhajir is not an ethnicity. It is catch-all term for people of Indian descent who emigrated to Pakistan and identify themselves as 'Muhajir'. None of them call themselves 'Muhajir' rather they are only Pakistanis. If this doesn't help, then add category of Indian descent to their profiles. Same applies to other cats created by User:Mar4d and added to WP:BLPs which is a violation. Störm (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Muhajir is not an ethnicity" - first of all, who said that? The Muhajir people are a community. This category is no different from other sub-categorizations of people by descent and community. You should consult academic literature and scholarly sources on the subject before making unsourced assumptions like not calling them a community.. Mar4d (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you linked to says "of multi-ethnic origin". DexDor (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: They migrated from various parts of India to Pakistan, hence the use of that term. However, the majority were of Urdu-speaking background. The term Muhajir is used collectively for the entire ethno-linguistic group. This category is in effect no different from other ethnicity sub-groupings we have. In fact, sub-categorization should be encouraged in this case quite clearly so because Category:Muhajir people itself is quite large. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles I've looked at (e.g. Ali Noorani) don't even mention this characteristic. DexDor (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The group in question is I think a high status group of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at Partition, speaking the Urdu language (that of the Moghul court) rather than Punjabi, Pushtu, or other regional languages. However, we have veered away from allowing categorisation by caste and this comes near to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but just a minor note (if I may), that the Muhajirs are classified more as an ethnolinguistic group rather than a caste (which has a very different meaning). Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question at stake is whether Mujahir descent is a key characteristic of the people in the category. That is apparently not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Categories like this exist by convention. See the many other ethnic descent categories on Wikipedia. As I've mentioned before, subcategorisation should be encouraged in any case, particularly for a large-size category as Category:Muhajir people. Mar4d (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marcocapelle is right. None of the category articles define or identify themselves as Muhajir. Maybe media calls them. Störm (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, Please help me in nominating them by making bundle. I failed to find appropriate template to bundle them here. Störm (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Muhajirs are an ethnic group, so they deserve category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.96.76 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's what Category:Muhajir people is for. It should not necessarily be divided in further subcategories. Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, or upmerge eligible articles only to Category:Muhajir people and Fooian people of Pakistani descent, per WP:OCEGRS, WP:GHETTO and WP:DEFINE. Articles for which muhajir status is defining should definitely be added to a root muhajir category, besides other eligible national or occupational categories, but I see no value in breaking it down in national descent categories (or, for that matter, occupational categories). Place Clichy (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: WP:CATDEF is met in the majority of cases, Altaf Hussain for instance. Again, I'm seeing no reason not to subdivide Category:Muhajir people, which is already large enough and should have been broken down long back. Mar4d (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dab page. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed the link. Mar4d (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's rational makes zero sense. It's known to everyone that Muhajir is an ethnic group. Pick up any book. By any scholar. It'll be there. 202.141.228.94 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's rationale makes zero sense. This nomination is not about Category:Muhajir people, which is an ethnic group, and which is not on the table here, and which will not be deleted. What is discussed here are intersectional categories, which create a lot of problems and should be handled with much care, especially for living people. I suggest you familiarize yourself a little bit with some Wikipedia policies such as WP:DEFINING or WP:OCEGRS which explain why ethnic intersectional categories are often not a good idea. Place Clichy (talk) 21:06, 22 July 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:Buildings and structures in Bosra[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 without prejudice to recreation when coverage of this topic improves. MER-C 17:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both this category and the parent town category contain very few articles. Bosra is a town in Syria of 20.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. without prejudice against re-creation if more articles are created in English Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 10 June 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:Buildings and structures in Biała Podlaska[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. without prejudice to recreation if/when there are more articles here on enwiki. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, very few articles both in this category and in the parent city category. Biała Podlaska is a city in Poland of 59.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a significant city. The Polish wiki has lots of building articles for the city. There's potential for the English version to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as WP:SOFTDELETE for now, without prejudice against re-creation when there are more articles in English Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 07:02, 22 May 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_May_19&oldid=1091637784"