Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 22 January 24 >

January 23[edit]

Category:Wikipedians with ADHD[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was recreated following a DRV overturning a prior deletion from 2007 for mainly procedural reasons. No convincing evidence has been presented that it "has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia", so it should be re-deleted. @Extraordinary Writ, VegaDark, Frank Anchor, Goldsztajn, Jclemens, Liz, Hobit, Alalch E., Sandstein, and Thryduulf: * Pppery * it has begun... 23:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:USERCAT. This was hypothesized to be a category which groups users by interest in a subject but the right category for that would be Category:Wikpedians interested in attention disorders or Category:Wikpedians interested in neurodevelopmental disorders; renaming won't work because Wikipedians who don't have ADHD may be interested in ADHD, and some who have it may not be interested in it from a Wikipedia-relevant angle. —Alalch E. 00:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substantially per the above. USERCATs should not entice people to share their medical or mental health conditions, the "interested in..." formulation has no such problems. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As far as I can tell the topic of this user category is neither "appropriate" nor "inappropriate" per WP:USERCAT. So I don't think arguments based on that guideline hold water. I understand Jclemens' objection, but again, that's not a reason for deletion AFAICT. I really don't see a reason to disallow a Wikipedian from disclosing their medical issues if they so choose. If folks think that's a bad idea for any reason (and I can certainly see some arguments for that), I'd suggest starting a discussion and updating USERCAT and maybe a few other guidelines about user pages. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just having ADHD does not imply willingness to collaborate on content regarding ADHD. Suggest starting Category:Wikpedians interested in attention disorders and notifying users in the current category about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the biggest community of Wikipedians by medical condition, very useful to find users with similar issues and interests, in order to work together on the related topics, just like already happens with Wikipedians with autism (who also have Wikipedia autism and WikiProject Autism). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the claim ("no convincing evidence") in the nomination and am perplexed as to what can be added here to that which was already discussed and resolved at DRV. Nevertheless, acknowledging the GF ping. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the requirement is that this category be used to build an encyclopedia. Having a self-interest status is not the same as working together on an area of interest. Better to join a WikiProject. A category is merely a tool for navigation, not intended to be for social labels. The cited Deletion Review didn't resolve anything. It is merely the position of some reviewers that long-standing CfD results should be reviewed from time to time. That position erodes confidence in maintaining categories.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that knowing someone has ADHD might be useful in interacting with them and thus could be useful to the project. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this were true (and I am wracking my brain to come up with realistic scenarios of how it would be useful, without success). A category for people with ADHD suggests a reason to go actively seeking out a grouping those users. A userbox or other notice on an individual's page would accomplish this same goal, without the need for a category. My point is that there are plenty of things someone might want to let others know about themselves on their userpage, which may or may not be useful information for interacting with that user, but doing so via a category suggests some sort of encylopedic use of grouping those users together, which I'm not seeing here. VegaDark (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:USERCAT lays out the guidelines for user categories. The gist of that guideline is that user categories are supposed to be for collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. User categories are, in essence, supposed to be for finding people who are similarly interested in collaborating on the topics related to that category. I would submit that a category for people who happen to have ADHD does not further that goal. There are hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians with ADHD. To that I say, so what? Why do we need a user category for that? How would keeping a collection of such users benefit the encyclopedia? I would wholeheartedly support creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD for those who are interested in using a category to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't, however, support keeping any number of categories of people with various medial diagnoses, and would support deletion of similar categories for the same reasons. WP:USERCAT states "As with all categories, user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group." Allowing this category to stand would be exactly that, simply a bottom-of-the-page notice without any plausible reason for someone to go looking through this category in an effort to help improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's true that this category doesn't run afoul of any of the specific WP:USERCATNO examples, but USERCAT also says that "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", and I've yet to see any strong argument that this category (as opposed to a hypothetical "interested in" category) fulfills that purpose. Contra Hobit, we're not trying to "disallow a Wikipedian from disclosing their medical issues if they so choose": anyone can use a userbox like Template:User ADHD or write on their userpage in plain text. All we're saying is that this isn't what the category namespace is here for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable subset of Category:Wikipedians by medical condition. It is likely that persons who have a condition and wish to include it on their userpage are more likely to be interested in the topic, and therefore this page satisfies WP:USERCAT. Frank Anchor 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep userboxes but delete category. Userboxes are sufficient for disclosing medical issues etc. If editors have a reason to look for others with the same condition, they can check "what links here" from each of the userboxes which are all within Category:Neurodivergent user templates. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 30 January 2023 (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:Public officials from Allentown, Pennsylvania[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no clear definition of what constitutes a public official and no other similar categories to my knowledge. As such, this is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. User:Namiba 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those in this category include government bureaucrats, judges, businesspeople. They are already in those categories and I don't see how it makes sense to create an entirely new category tree for such a diverse array of professions.--User:Namiba 16:22, 24 January 2023 (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:Ancient Egyptian texts[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No meaningful distinction between "texts" and "literature" - literature is the term commonly used for texts - car chasm (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • leave unmerged as I understand it, most ancient texts are things like inventory and bookkeeping--not things that could be called "literature" but are still "texts". Hobit (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not in anyway clear to me, people refer to works of literature as "texts" all the time, and certainly many things called "literature" are listed under texts so it seems like others may have the same confusion. Perhaps they should be swapped with "texts" as the parent and "literature" as the subcat? - car chasm (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep, it may be useful to distinguish a topic category (literature) and a set category (texts) though I am not sure if a topic category can be properly populated in the case of ancient Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — belongs in established Category:Texts (fixed). I'm a bit more concerned that Category:Ancient Egyptian literature contains fiction about Ancient Egypt. This needs a bit of sprucing up by somebody more expert than me.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2023 (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:Bronze Age literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Category:Bronze Age literature

Category:Ancient Middle Eastern wisdom literature[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming convention is "Ancient Near East" - car chasm (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2023 (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:People's Mujahedin of Iran[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 10:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Charles Essie (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (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:British colonels[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category like this in Category:British military officers. Everybody else is categorised by their service, not their rank. This one lumps together anyone who held a specific rank no matter which service they belonged to (including the British Indian Army, which was not even part of the British Armed Forces despite the blurb). What is its point? Pure unnecessary overcategorisation which is of no use whatsoever to a reader. Who cares which officers reached the rank of colonel and no higher? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — part of a convoluted partially developed tree of Category:Colonels by nationality under Category:Military officers by rank, and the rest of them should be deleted, too. The answer to your question is in some militaries colonel is highly respected, while in others it was a purchased commission, and in the pre-WW2 US sometimes only honorary. Admirals and Generals are better defined.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a well-populated category. The alternative would be to merge this into British military officers, but that would result in the content being lost in jumbled category. The British army operated (until recently) on a regimental system, where the notional head was a colonel, but that was usually a honorary position, with a Lieutenant-colonel actually commanding and commonly being called colonel. I am not clear what nom's objection is: British navy and air force do not have colonels. Royal Engineers are a separate corps (historically managed separately), but their officers hold the king's commission. Similarly British officers in the Indian army held the king's commission. The nom's objection might apply to Royal Marines, who were notionally soldiers serving aboard ships. Until relatively modern times, the company of marines on board any ship was too small to require a colonel to command them. This will not apply where marines were deployed in considerable number on land on WWI or WWII or since they have been reconstituted as commandos (post-WWII). Even in the period before 1870(?) when commissions were purchased, the lieut-col was in actual command of his battalion. However, those who attained a higher rank should not be included here. In my view, if a category can be populated we should have it, excluding the usual overcategorization cases of Performance, venue, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not for a mismash of honorary positions, no matter how "well-populated". This is for navigation, not trivia labels. It's far too easy to populate a garbage category, and far too much work to clean up category messes.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because, unlike general, colonel is not a defined rank category. It's just a single rank (and does not include lieutenant-colonel, so I'm not sure what your point is there). There is no point in having a category for officers who reached a specific rank and no higher, especially when services are mixed together in this way (including services that were not even part of the British Armed Forces). Incidentally, the Royal Marines has always had colonels (and generals), long before the 20th century. The Royal Engineers are part of the British Army. And as stated above, any category can be populated. If that was a criterion for having a category then CfD would be pointless. All these officers are (or should be) already in the category for their own particular regiment, corps or service, so there is no need to merge them into British military officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I reviewed the ones beginning with A, and all of them were also categorised as British Army personnel by war or by corps. Therefore, if not kept, no merge appears to be necessary. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 31 January 2023 (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:Presocratic philosophical literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Category:Presocratic philosophical literature

Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground[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/delete as nominated, following precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.
Delete where already categorized by line. Upmerge where the stations are not already in another subcategory.
See recent:
  1. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2#Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground
  2. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
  3. Deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, please close this the same way as previous discussions, regardless of what the consensus was. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all -this is just overcategorisation. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 09:25, 30 January 2023 (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:Mexican female child singers[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. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one "female child singers" category for any country, and its one member is in all relevant parent categories (21st-century Mexican women singers, Mexican child singers). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:14, 23 January 2023 (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:Kosovan ski jumping biography stubs[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 category and template. The template will be replaced by those for parent categories. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, editors are not free to create stub categories willy-nilly for just one article -- there have to be 60 or more articles to be filed in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they can be created, but this features just one article and has no evidence of project approval. I'm agnostic about whether the stub template is needed or not; it would be harmless if it was sorting the article into other more general stub categories that already exist, but it's not clearly needed for just one article either. So I leave the template for consensus to decide on, but a dedicated category cannot be kept for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60 is not at all a feasible bar for primary content categories; there are a lot of circumstances where a category much smaller than that is entirely appropriate and necessary, and we also have to balance the issue of small categories against parent categories that might become too large to be browsable without diffusion into subcategories. Stub categories, however, are different — they're meant for internal project maintenance, not end-user browsing, so the bar can be very different for them than it is for end-user content categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, how about 10? We just have so many many many small nominations it seems like such a waste of time. Better to make the bar significant enough they can have a speedy criteria.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2023 (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/2023_January_23&oldid=1136724016"