Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8
October 10 >

October 9

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current title may be misleading implying that all those people died due to LGBTQ issues. Some of them, however, committed suicide for other reasons, such as Alexander McQueen. Proposed title would also be consistent with the Foo who died by suicide scheme: Category:College students who died by suicide‎, Category:People who died by suicide in prison custody‎, etc. Brandmeistertalk 08:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Mexican side in the Texas Revolution

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds awkward and is confusing/inconsistent Mason (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't love the suggestion, but it is an improvement. Mason (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If we want to include only regular military personnel of Mexico, then the name should be Mexican military personnel of the Texas Revolution (somewhat equivalent to sibling Category:Army of the Republic of Texas personnel killed in the Texas Revolution, except that not all of them were killed).
  2. If we want to include regular military personnel AND irregular combatants, but exclude civilians, then Mexican Republic combatants of the Texas Revolution is the best option per Carguychris (& Mason).
  3. If we want to include all civilian, regular and irregular participants, then Pro-Mexican people of the Texas Revolution is the best option per Category:Pro-Russian people of the Russo-Ukrainian War and Category:Pro-Ukrainian people of the Russo-Ukrainian War. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southend-on-Sea (district)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per discussion at AFD for County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries for the city and district are the same. Eastbourne is good example of this which has one category for the whole town and district.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastbourne is not the same as it is completely unparished unlike Southend (and as noted below the district article was kept). Southend actually has 3 potential definitions that we could use namely the smallest being the part of the district which has "Southend-on-Sea" as the post town, the next smallest being the unparished area which roughly covers both Southend and Westcliff-on-Sea post towns namely excluding Leigh-on-Sea parish and the largest being the whole district. There is also Southend Urban Area but in 2021 the was urban areas/BUAs seems to have changed so it may not still exist. That said I'm not sure maintaining separate categories for the settlement/unparished area and district is helpful as categories are generally less granular than articles so it may well be better to just merge all into 1 category covering all definitions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the parished area (leigh) falls within the wider Southend UA border. If anything Leigh should have its own category? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Leigh probably should have its own category namely for the area covered by the parish. We have other parishes with categories, see Category:Civil parishes in Essex. All the other articles that are in the unparished area could go in the categories for the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The latter category is for the traditional town of Southend-on-Sea, not the wider district. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of somewhere like Colchester, where the boundaries of the district are outside the city boundaries I can understand having separate categories (Colchester (town) and Boroughof Colchester), but Southend District and city boundaries are the same. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Southend-on-Sea (district)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per AFD at County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries between City and district are the same. Also there are individual category pages for suburbs of Southend.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The latter category is for people from the traditional town of Southend-on-Sea, not the wider district, hence the subcats of the district category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what is the traditional town of Southend? Read any history book and the town is seen as the whole not its parts after they were absorbed into the district. Also Colchester only has one category, People from Colchester, and then separate categories for the other localities in the district, which Southend does with People from Westcliff-on-Sea and People from Leigh on Sea already existing. Therefore a district category is not required.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could use Category:People Southend-on-Sea (district) as a Container category with People from Westcliff-on-Sea etc linked to that? And have a separate People from Southend-on-Sea- much like London has?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Department stores in Southend-On-Sea (town)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Southend is now a city. As per afd on County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, there is no differentation between the city and district boundaries.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professorships in theology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlaping underpopulated category Mason (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is excessively vague and therefore violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There is little agreement in the aviation community as to what constitutes "auxiliary equipment". Carguychris (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest a merge target. Mason (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is difficult given the ambiguity of the current name. The sole current article in the category, TWA Flight 529, crashed due to an elevator failure. Perhaps Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving flight control failure? The underlying issue is the lack of a consistent, unambiguous definition for "auxiliary equipment". "Flight control" is considerably easier to define, but is also ambiguous to some degree. All that being said, I'm also concerned that creating myriad aircraft accident categories by cause may lead to WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NARROWCAT concerns. Carguychris (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in the Middle East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: West Asia and the Middle East largely overlap, so we do not need both category trees. It is better to keep West Asia because it is consistent with other subcategories in Category:Religion in Asia by region. Sakakami (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge per nom and rename dependent on the merge direction. There is also this discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - The reason these categories "largely overlap" is entirely because the regions themselves "largely overlap". An incovenient fact, perhaps, but a reality that Wikipedia is bound to respect - and that our categories must reflect. (There are many other overlapping category trees that we maintain simply because they reflect aspects of the real world.) Furthermore, the term "Middle East" is well-known to the great majority of readers, who are unlikely to be familiar with the term "West Asia". Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's response to the objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the West Asian categories to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Sweden clergymen in Colonial North America

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely narrow. I think it should either be merged to 17th/18th century American Lutheran clergy or renamed to Church of Sweden clergy from the Thirteen Colonies Mason (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prohibition-era gangsters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are really overlapping categories. Does anyone have ideas for how to make these two categories more distinct, or perhaps combine them? For the record. Prohibition in the united states was from Jan 17, 1920 – Dec 5, 1933, whereas the great depression was from 1929 to 1939ish. Mason (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Merging in this way does not seem to be the answer, as it is not true that all Category:Depression-era gangsters also were active in the Depression era. Perhaps, someone can make a count of the actual overlap of articles, not just the time period overlaps. thanks Hmains (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urdu-language women writers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between language, gender, and occupation, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on NL's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's the not question. The intersection is gender with language and occupation. I don't think this meets the criteria for EGRS, and there are no other categories at this intersection. @Nederlandse Leeuw do you have evidence to the contrary that Urdu-language women writers meet the criteria at the intersection? Aka is the "combination [] itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right"? Mason (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 49.300 results for "women urdu writers" in Google Scholar. Just to highlight a few:
  • The Role of Female Writers in the Promotion of Popular Literature in Urdu.
  • Women Reading/Women Writing: Anxiety and Āzādī in Twentieth Century Urdu Pulp Fiction
  • Female Voices: Women Writers in Hyderabad at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: there has been a whole movement of female writers in Urdu, both of poetry and of prose
  • Images of Women in Urdu Novels Written by Muslim Women: An Analysis from A Feminist Perspective
  • Articulation, agency and embodiment in contemporary Pakistani Urdu poetry by women
  • Urdu women's magazines in the early twentieth century
  • Urban Women Rebels: Voices of Dissent in Urdu Popular Fiction
  • Feminine or Patriarchal: Story of Adam and Eve in Urdu Novels by Women Writers
Etc.
Also plenty of Google Books, e.g.
  • The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol I: Fiction
  • The Language They Chose: Women's Writing in Urdu Vol II: Non-Fiction
  • Women's Writings from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh: The Worlds of Bangla and Urdu
  • Parwaaz: A Selection of Urdu Short Stories by Women
  • Portrayals of Women in Pakistan: An Analysis of Fahmīdah Riyāẓ’s Urdu Poetry
Etc.
So yes @Smasongarrison, I think I might have some evidence. Arguably, it's high time that this topic received its own stand-alone article. NLeeuw (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian women translators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between nationality, gender, and genre of writing, per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcoapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing the target on the fact that it's typically a parent category, but I haven't thought deeply about whether translators are also defined as being linguists. Mason (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville Black Caps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one category layer. Both are basically the same team but changed their names. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The normal CFD jargon for "combine" is "merge". Is merging an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_9&oldid=1250269958"