Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding merging nomination of Category:Cask strength.
Line 14: Line 14:
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
==== Category:Cask strength ====
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:Cask strength]] to [[:Category:Whisky]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' This category is really not helpful for navigation. I tried to find a 2nd parent category, and it made it clear to me that we really don't need a category for Cask strength [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
==== Category:1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season ====
==== Category:1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season ====
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season}}
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season}}

Revision as of 02:48, 17 May 2024

< May 16
May 18 >

May 17

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Cask strength

Nominator's rationale: This category is really not helpful for navigation. I tried to find a 2nd parent category, and it made it clear to me that we really don't need a category for Cask strength Mason (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; part of well-established tree. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[1]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)
    My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
    * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
    * nonextant
    Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alder carrs

Convert Category:Alder carrs to article Alder carr
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert. Mason (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rebel princes

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: main article princely rebellion. NLeeuw (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal rationale by Marcocapelle (opposed speedy rename): this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Officers of Ipswich Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one page here, which isn't helpful for navigation. I strongly encourage the category creator not to create categories with only one page in them. Mason (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian screenwriters by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Even if a 2nd category were made, it still wouldn't be helpful as this is the only category in the in parent) Mason (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory covers the century that is probably the least interesting to people who study history of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters is using the standardized {{Screenwriters by nationality and century category header}} framework — but that template autogenerates an artificially-transcluded "[Country-named-in-this-category] screenwriters by century" as a standard part of its formatting. But that can't be left to sit there redlinked, so either it has to exist regardless of any size issues, or we have to wrap the template in {{suppress categories}} to bork its category generation and then manually file Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters in the other categories that still exist. But that would defeat the entire purpose of using the standardized template in the first place, and would have the side-effect of stranding that category from the Category:Screenwriters by nationality and century tree.
    I'm not at all wedded to this being essential, and have personally wrapped many category-generating templates in the suppress categories wrapper when necessary, but just wanted to point out that there are "standardized formatting" considerations here beyond size.
    Really, it's more a question of whether Category:Armenian screenwriters need any by-century categorization yet — with only six people in the 21st-century category and only 20 in the parent, it's not clear that subbing them out for century is needed at all — but if the 21st-century category does exist, then this is automatically imposed and transcluded by the template as a standard and expected parent for it, so the question is really less about the need for this than it is the need for a 21st-century category to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, I'm not sure how the this comment is relevant to the nomination at hand. And, for the record, it isn't the case the FOOian occupation by century needs to exist. That category is only added if it exists, otherwise, the category is added to FOOian screenwriters. Mason (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who works regularly with cleaning up redlinked categories at Special:WantedCategories, I have to deal with new redlinked categories autogenerated by occupation header templates of this type all the phunking time. So just telling me that they suppress redlinks isn't convincing when I routinely see hard evidence that they don't. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have examples of this that are recent (like since April 6th)? Because each time there's been an red link, I've added a fix to address it [2]. The present code exclusively uses resolve category redirects and checks if the category exists before it adds it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would really like to see it so that I can figure out what is not working as intended. Mason (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 9 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) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships built on the River Orwell

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant layer. Mason (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Populated places on the Underground Railroad

Nominator's rationale: Specific buildings which served as stations on the Underground Railroad are absolutely defined by it but an entire town, city or county is usually not. In some cases, certain locales like New Bedford, Massachusetts were such hubs of the Underground Railroad that they should be kept in the main category but that can be done on a case by case basis. User:Namiba 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are historically related places. They were certainly defining for these places during the historical period involved here: 1840s and 1850s in the United States. These illegal activities were something that many people in a place were at least silently aware of and did not bring to the attention of law enforcement. In many cases, the articles do not point to a specific building(s) so there is no use in thinking that will keep tying these together, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it defining though? In most cases, no. Neither Portland, Maine nor most other cities are not defined by the fact that they had a stop in the Underground Railroad. For cities which are defined as such, they can and should be categorized within the tree. If you can show otherwise, I will withdraw the nomination.--User:Namiba 17:07, 14 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) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's really not a need to diffuse this category by perpetrator Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17&oldid=1224237122"