Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter coxhead (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 13 January 2018 (→Category:Fish of Burkina Faso: spot on). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute academic journals

Nominator's rationale: To match the article, MDPI and the actual name of the publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with extra-sensory perception and communication

Nominator's rationale: Per article Extrasensory perception, but not quite speedyable. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian military physicians

Austrian military physicians

Category:Native American fashion designers

Nominator's rationale: Due to the semantic ambiguity of Native American, i.e. the question of whether it refers to all indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents or only the ones from the United States, Wikipedia has a standing practice of using the term in the latter, uncontroversial sense rather than the former, highly loaded one -- if a category is meant to be inclusive of everyone from Ellesmere Island to Tierra del Fuego, then we use the wording "Indigenous X of the Americas" (as witness parent category Category:Indigenous artists of the Americas and its other subcategories) rather than "Native American". It would also be acceptable to create the proposed rename as a separate category, and then move the four Canadians to it while retaining this as a US-specific subcategory, but with just 15 people filed here so far I'm not convinced that national subcategorization would be necessary yet. But what cannot happen is this category staying at this name, and being filed as a subcategory of US-specific categories, while simultaneously staying inclusive of Canadian Inuit and First Nations people. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seperate out the First Nations individuals. THe reason this category is not being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is because in fashion design there is just not a long standing, transnational practice of the art in the sense that makes it a logical sub-cat of the generalized indigenous Americas artists category. I have to admit I am less than convinced that this is a case where the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is defining. In a category like Category:Native American potters the people involved often are using or at least highly influenced by ethnic practices, I am less than convinced this is the case in fashion design.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, one of the people who's been added here (the one who I was already familiar with, because I created her article in the first place through my work with WikiProject Film) is a costume designer who has worked exclusively on films in which what she had to design was traditional Inuit garb — and I just spotchecked several of the other articles, all of which explicitly stated that the subject incorporated indigenous influences into their clothing design, such as beadwork and fabric patterning. So I'm more comfortable with calling this a validly defining characteristic — and I don't believe the creator actually intended this to be restricted exclusively to Canada and the United States, either: I suspect that the real reason this isn't being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is just that either we don't have articles about indigenous clothing designers from south of the Rio Grande yet or we do and the creator just hasn't found them. I don't see any evidence that the creator intended to restrict its scope to "Canada/US only" — the usage note on the category page, in fact, says it's for designers from North and South America. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pisa-class cruisers of the Hellenic Navy

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge; single-member category of zero value. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pandalapaka

Nominator's rationale: This category only disambiguates two different villages with the same name. That's not something categories are for: we don't, for instance have a Category:Belmont containing all the numerous places called Belmont in the world Reyk YO! 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bandini Automobili

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only 2 articles Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years and decades up to 1500 in Asian countries

Example
The full list of categories to merged/deleted is on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. This nomination concerns China, the kingdom of Georgia, India and Vietnam. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge everything for these years in the a general 1034 in Eurasia etc category. The line between Europe and Asia is a matter of political geography and drawn based on assumed cultural borders. It is too hard to fix in this period, and any fixing imposes a world-view developed by European geographers of the 16th-century and later on an earlier time period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, we might drop a diffusion by continent in the Middle Ages entirely, because in this period only Europe and Asia are sufficiently populated to have year categories. Note that we already dropped the diffusion by continent in the period before 500, so it's not a completely new thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fish of Burkina Faso

Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Hormonotus or Chiloglanis occidentalis) is found in a particular West-African country is WP:NON-DEFINING.  Example similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_23#Category:Mammals_of_Benin. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And example of a previous fish CFD DexDor (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 countries are not on the coast and their categories are already in the freshwater fish category. DexDor (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In some cases, if you look at the articles in the category, the categorization should be higher still. The real problem is the random creation of distribution categories by type of organism (fish, freshwater fish, moths, reptiles, protostomes, etc.) and by geographical location (states or provinces within countries, individual countries, biogeographical regions, politically defined regions, etc.). It's a total mess. However, I support small steps! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. With rare exceptions, plant and animal species are not confined or defined by political borders — they are constrained by broader regions, such as continents and climate zones. So we have a long-established consensus not to categorize plant and animal species by individual country, because that causes extreme category bloat when a plant or animal that's found in 15 countries gets added to 15 categories — we categorize plant and animal species by broad geographic regions such as West Africa, not by individual country within West Africa. And I see no reason to believe that consensus has changed on this — what I do see, however, is a lot of other flora/fauna categories for other West African countries that were also created against consensus and also have to go. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: absolutely right. There's been gross over-fine categorization of distributions, and a few editors have been creating categories without displaying any understanding of guidelines and without attempting to reach a consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional pedophiles

Nominator's rationale: More inclusive; some characters listed are technically not pedophiles. --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A bit of the apples and oranges here. Pedophilia is an exclusive sexual attraction towards "prepubescent children", typically younger than 13-years-old. Hebephilia is persistent sexual interest towards children in the early stages of adolescence, typically between 11 and 14-years-old. The study we cite from the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld noted that about 2/3 of those questioned expressed interest in the young adolescents, while interest in the prepubescents was less often. Pedophilia is currently classified as a psychiatric disorder, while hebephilia is not and is considered likely to be far more commonplace in adults. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While all of that is true, the problem is that people regularly conflate the two — e.g. while most (though certainly not all) media sources about the Roy Moore allegations were correctly more careful in their terminology, in everyday conversation people just incorrectly called him a pedophile. So articles about non-pedophiles keep getting added to this category, and readded again if they get removed, so we would need to either add "hebephiles" to the name for clarity (libel not an issue given that we're talking about fictional characters here) or create a separate category for the hebephiles. I don't know which of those is the better solution, but we definitely can't just leave the category at its existing name without doing something about the repeated addition of non-pedophiles to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefield State Big Blues

Nominator's rationale: The athletic teams at Bluefield State College are known as the "Big Blues", not the "Owls". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_13&oldid=820260397"