Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 14

August 14

Category:Back to the Future

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:Back to the Future

Category:Australian suffragettes

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. MER-C 11:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Australian suffragettes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a combination of traits that's not directly linked. The term "suffragettes" does not refer to just any woman on earth who advocated for suffrage in her own country, but refers specifically to membership in one specific UK-based suffragist organization that advocated for women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. If a person wasn't a UK citizen who advocated for suffrage with that organization, then we don't categorize them as a suffragette, we categorize them as an "[Appropriate Nationality] suffragist". And while the one person filed here did move from her birthplace in Australia to the UK at age 7, and did join the correct UK organization to get categorized as a suffragette, the fact that she happens to have been born in Australia isn't important enough to warrant a single-entry category for the intersection of UK-specific suffragettism with Australian birth. She's already categorized as both an Australian suffragist and an English suffragette, so no important information will be lost. Bearcat (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t fault the nominator’s logic. Dreamspy (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People who leave their native country as children generally should not be categorised as from there. She was not a suffragette or a suffragist in Australia. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term suffragette is not used in Australia - women's vote campaigners are categorised as Category:Australian suffragists. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a specific parent category for Category:Women's vote suffragists is needed that can take both suffragettes and related international categories. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one person was a suffragettes in England of Australian birth. Suffragettes refers to those in one British campaign group. There may be a case for adding a further suffragist category to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2020 (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:Environmental activism

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. MER-C 18:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Environmental activism to Category:Environmentalism

Nominator's rationale: Category that doesn't offer a very clear or obvious distinction from its parent. When I found this it consisted primarily of individual people, who had to be recategorized as Category:Environmentalists because people are -ists and not -isms, and a smaller smattering of other things (organizations, an environmental law) that also had to be recategorized more specifically than just the general concept of "activism" -- and by the time I had cleaned all of those misfiles up, the only things left were environmental movement and a redirect from a neologism for the participants in one particular environmental demonstration, neither of which would be obviously out of place in the parent category. Any distinction between "environmentalism" and "environmental activism" just isn't a clear or meaningful enough line to need two separate categories for them. Bearcat (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Probably the article Environmental activism should be merged into Environmentalism as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2020 (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:Peace mechanism

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: option A, rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peace mechanism to Category:Peace mechanisms

Nominator's rationale: Option A, rename to plural since this is a set category. Option B split between Category:Peacebuilding and a new Category:War ending as the word 'mechanism' is a vague descriptor and not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copy of CFDS discussion

Category:Peace mechanism to Category:Peace process – C2D per Peace process Brandmeister^talk 18:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Peace process was originally named Category:Peace mechanism for a good reason. Please restore the category name to Category:Peace mechanism. I'm not an admin so I can't.
- Category:Peace processes is for peace processes such as Category:Bangsamoro peace process‎ (8 P), Category:Basque Country peace process‎ (3 P), Category:Bosnian peace process‎ (6 P).
- Readers will get totally confused if individual peace mechanisms are categorised as elements of Category:Peace process, because that is not normally a category - it's a specific realisation of a peace process. What you have done is the equivalent of categorising city, province, constituent state government, culture as elements of Category:Country. It's true that countries almost always have cities, governments and cultures, and often have provinces and constituent states; but Category:Country was deleted 11 years ago.
- Thanks. Boud (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was processed but belatedly opposed at User_talk:JJMC89. I copied the above opposition rationale from there and am reversing the move.
  - I suggest that Category:Peace mechanisms (plural) would be an improvement, and allowable as C2A. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The term 'mechanism' is pretty vague anyway, it is not a common word used in the articles. A more appropriate category name might be Category:Peacebuilding, C2D per Peacebuilding. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Peacebuilding" would not be a good choice. The terminology in the general field is not well standardised, but I put a lot of effort in trying to sort this out based on WP:RS in peace process after previous editors hadn't seemed to realise that it's not enough to declare definitions of words, they have to be really adopted by sources. According to the United Nations, "peacebuilding" is the prevention of the repeat of a solved conflict, though it can also mean the preventing of an armed conflict from occurring at all. This excludes mechanisms for solving an existing conflict. "Peacebuilding" does not apply to Donbass or Libya because the conflicts are ongoing. So Category:Peacebuilding would defeat the point of listing the specific elements for preventing, solving, or preventing reccurrence of armed inter- or intrastate conflicts. The peacebuilding article is quite poor in terms of inline referencing, but the present text seems to match the UN sourced definition.
      Between Category:Peace mechanisms and Category:Peace mechanism, I'm not familiar enough with current Category guidelines to have a strong argument. A random check on Special:AllPages/Category:Hk suggests that plurals are preferred in similar cases, so Category:Peace mechanisms seems fine by me.
      There might be a better term than "peace mechanisms" for the specific elements used in peace processes, but I'm not aware of it (ordinary English such as "components of peace processes" or "elements of peace processes" would make sense, but "peace mechanisms" seems to be the most common). Some references in favour of the term include Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, water management (MSc thesis), Cornell Policy Review "peace mechanisms such as truth commissions, reparations, and memorialization", Section 2.3.1 of this Nepal peacebuilding analysis lists specific peace mechanisms.
      Boud (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Splitting between a new Category:War ending and Category:Peacebuilding would be my next proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peacebuilding would not work here because it's an "-ing" word - it's about more synthetic (WP:RS) overviews of processes, not about particular concrete elements of them. The present elements of Category:Peacebuilding are wider topics than individual mechanisms. Many of the specific elements (mechanisms) are components both to solve existing conflicts and to prevent conflicts from occurring or recurring: e.g. arms embargoes and confidence-building measures. "War ending" is also an -ing expression, with the same problem. I don't see an objection in principle of having two sub-categories of Category:peace mechanism or Category:peace mechanisms, but it seems a bit premature to me, and I think the focus on individual things/pieces - mechanisms - will reduce the number of fuzzy categorisations. Better wait until we have more contributions/contributors before sub-categorising. Boud (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister, Boud, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option A since the use of the plural appears to be a common Category convention, and makes sense in ordinary English. Oppose Option B because:

Category:Peacebuilding is at a higher synthetic level than a list of individual mechanisms; it already contains broader articles about peacebuilding processes than those concentrating on concrete specific mechanisms, and would introduce fuzziness in a general field of knowledge where it's hard to separate well-defined things from general feel-good blabla;
Category:War ending is not going to be understood to mean "individual mechanisms that are generally accepted as tending to help resolve an existing inter- or intrastate armed conflict";
splitting the category of peace mechanisms into two sub-categories is unjustified as long as we lack good editing with good inline sourcing and clear language in articles that could or should go into the two sub-categories.

Boud (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Option A Set category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2020 (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.