Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 12

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

October 12[edit]

Category:Books about mathematics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Books about mathematics

Category:Toyfinity[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) 03:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This categorization centers around the Toyfinity brand, this eponymous category having zero subcategories and only three related articles — all of which already wikilink to one another. Based on the history of these articles, this category/topic is small with little-to-no potential for growth. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2021 (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:Nepalese lyricists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Nepalese lyricists

Category:Jōdo Shinshū Buddhist monks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Jōdo Shinshū Buddhist monks

Category:Historical events 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: keep. @Just N., the nomination is to delete, so keep and oppose are the same. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: monstrum category. Word "historical" is very wide and not defined here. No such category in Wikimedia Commons. Luckily the parent category (Category:Historical events) is not created. Also the respective Germany and France categories are missing Estopedist1 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the events categories contain incomparable types of events: e.g. fairs, beauty pageant contests and festivals on the one hand (mostly recurring annual entertainment events) and e.g. distablishments, establishments, disasters on the other hand (past single events, hardly ever in the field of entertainment). Splitting is absolutely reasonable. Renaming might be a possibility though. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a group nomination to merge all "Historical events" categories up to "Events". Even though Category:Events contains small hierarchies for Category:Current events and Category:Future events, I see no benefit in splitting to Historical. – Fayenatic London 06:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, at the very least several subcategories should also be merged to history parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If and when completed, this will improve navigation for readers seeking the histories of each country. It needs to be developed, not deleted. It must not, however, be limited to modern countries only and it must also take account of countries which now belong to wider groupings, the countries of the UK being the main case in point. Incidentally, I don't see a need for an umbrella category like Category:Historical events. The parent categories now, Category:History by country and Category:Events by country, are sufficient. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly are we to distinguish between an event and a historical event? Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recurring event that has not been disestablished (e.g. a yearly festival) is not a historical event. A non-recurrent event (e.g. the building of a bridge) is a historical event. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is a collection of categories like Category:Historical events in Denmark across hundreds of countries, if there is no plan to rename those surely this category must be kept. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a harmless container for a large number of national categories. While they exist, they need a container. I might not oppose a wide-ranging merger of all member categories to their sibling "history by country" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For once, I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a distinction between entertainment events and various events of historical importance, such as disasters. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not sure if I should decide for oppose or keep. Both have good reasons. I'd certainly prefer not to delete but to develop the category tree to have a historical event and a cultural event branch. --Just N. (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2021 (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:College football winless seasons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:College football winless seasons

Category:Diseases characterised by polyuria[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. I note that the lead article already has a list and prominently mentions the current category members. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, non-defining characteristic, not only of the two articles currently in the category, it is also not defining for e.g. Primary polydipsia which is not in the category yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2021 (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:Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Madonna (entertainer)

Category:Black Marxists[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:African-American Marxists. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:ETHNICRACECAT, "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." User:Namiba 16:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, re Namiba, isn't "black" an ethnic as well as racial category? Second, re Marcocapelle, the distinction between Marxism and Communism is vital, as the latter is far narrower, used for members of Communist Parties specifically. However, the key point is that "black Marxism" is a specific tradition/branch within Marxism (see Cedric Robinson's book of this name) in much the same way as black feminism or black anarchism are, rather than a racial designation. Perhaps the more sensible move would be to rename to Category:Black Marxism and include key texts and organisations from this tradition as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a history book, it is not a ground for labelling people, unless it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the case of those currently in this category, it is a defining characteristic. (I also think a lot of Wikipedia categories seem to function as labels even for those for whom it is not a defining characteristic (e.g. Angela Davis and James Boggs are also in the category Category:Alabama socialists, which is far less defining than black Marxist in their case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Black Marxism is an important work, but it is not the basis for an entire tendency of political thinkers.--User:Namiba 14:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Black Marxism per BobFromBrockley as this will allow expansion of the scope from people only to all aspects of Marxism as applicable to black people. Although there is no strict racial or ethnic distinction in Marxism, given that equality is one of its cornerstones, there is a definite relevance to and application of Marxist principles across different cultures. I would argue that a person's actual colour (black, brown, red, white, yellow, purple, whatever) sits astride the ethnic/racial threshold and I don't believe we should apply ETHNICRACECAT here. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case we would turn it into a topic category and we should purge biographies. But practically, the latter would imply we would empty the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2021 (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:Roman Catholic priests in New Spain[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. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It includes bishops as well as priests in New Spain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite happy with that - but surely bishops are priests? Rathfelder (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the usual container for both is "clergy". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I think the umbrella term is preferable in a case like this. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a fairly clear religious hierarchy in established churches: From Category:Christians to Category:Christian clergy to priests (or ministers) to bishops to archbishops and, in the Roman Catholic church, to cardinals and popes? Are there any articles in New Spain about clergy who are not priests? Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category tree has been set up to allow for deacons, who are clergy but not priests. Also, cardinals are not necessarily priests if I remember correctly (although in practice they always are). In retrospect this might have been set up more efficiently (by having priests and deacons and possibly cardinals as siblings and bishops as a subcategory of priests, without a clergy parent), but I think it is too late for that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that that is to overthink it. Effectively, we treat priests and bishops categories as siblings, not as parent/child. This is because every bishop is a priest and so it eliminates a redundant layer by having them as priests since everyone knows that they are already priests. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection -- but every Catholic bishop is also a priest. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2021 (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:Chilean popular singers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Category:Chilean popular singers

Category:Magazines reestablished in 2010[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. bibliomaniac15 20:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Similar categories were merged here[1] and here[2]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 12 October 2021 (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:Indian mythological 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: keep. If this is revisited in future, it might be helpful to consider more of the hierarchy Category:Hindu mythology in popular culture together. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The use of mythological to categorise television series that are based on religious beliefs is pointy and non-neutral and thus generating ill-will and editing disputes. I've just checked The article Jesus of Nazareth (TV series)) and it is not included in any mythological categories, not that it should be, but there is a double-standard at play here. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Indian television series about Hinduism. Agree with nominator about the principle, but renaming is a better solution than deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of Category:Hindu mythology, article Hindu mythology. I'm not sure that anyone claims that Ganesh was other than mythological. Oculi (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. Although the nominator makes a fair point in Christian terms, Hinduism takes a different view of mythology and a Hindu myth is a reflection of belief. I can't decide if we should seek to rename the category per Marcocapelle as that would considerably broaden its scope, potentially beyond that which Hindu readers might desire. It's a tricky one which will need a lot of discussion, really. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Marcocapelle before anyone starts thinking that it's about television series that don't exist. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator I support the suggested name change by Marcocapelle as an alternative to deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Television series about Hindu mythology, which might be slightly wider than the present scope, but no harm. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. --Just N. (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure that @Oculi: is right about this as one of the reasons I brought this to cfd is that there have been edit wars on some of the Indian TV series articles on my watchlist over the use of the term mythological as the genre of the show. So it seems the term is causing offence to Hindi worshippers in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2021 (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/2021_October_12&oldid=1055095075"