Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 19

March 19

Category:Jockeys by populated place in the United States

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 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were going to be several more, but I managed to piss off a few editors who didn't see why Foo sportspeople should be divided by US city, despite the fact that they are divided like that on Wikipedia for every other large country, so I stopped. I could easily add a few more to make the category worthwhile, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it was inadequate when nominated, it's adequate now. Also, it's not just sportspeople who conduct their careers away from where they were born or grew up. Last, a person's origin may be trivial to some readers but I suspect it's considered a key trait to others. It depends on how much a reader values "sense of place" or is interested in what a particular community contributes to the world. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:35, 19 March 2024 (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.

Minor league coaches

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Minor league coaches

English-language Bahamian films

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#English-language Bahamian films

Category:Nazis in the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis in the United States

Category:Professional Women's Hockey Players Association players

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. This discussion has a bit of a history; see this discussion at WT:HOCKEY for a bit more context. With that out of the way, this is actually a fairly simple close. The rationale for deletion/recategorization is that membership in an advocacy group is not a defining characteristic, which is undoubtedly true. However, as keep !voters pointed out, this was not merely an advocacy group. It was an actual league which played actual games (though in fairness to those who supported deletion, I will echo the fact that at the time it was not exactly clear from reading Professional Women's Hockey Players Association that it was more than an advocacy group). Playing in the league is defining, and therefore this is a valid category. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 02:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 19 March 2024 (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:Writers on Atheism

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 and purge. There is a lot going on here, but the crux of what we are deciding here is whether or not these categories are defining as is. While some editors argued that it was, a supermajority was convinced the current arrangement is not a defining characteristic. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although this was only just renamed per the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_18#Category:Atheist_writers, that nomination did not state any rationale for capitalising atheism as a proper noun, which does not match siblings within Category:Atheism such as Category:Criticism of atheism. – Fayenatic London 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a look on google search, it looks like "atheism" is more commonly used than "Atheism", so I agree with the renaming proposal as it seems to be the more commonly used way of the word. Vontheri (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Cfd discussion
 Comment: I disagree, since this category can be included in Category:French atheists. A "writer on Atheism" is not necessarily an atheist, and an atheist writer can write about many different issues except Atheism. PedroAcero76 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, none of the writers listed in this category are "writers on Atheism", they didn't write on that issue. PedroAcero76 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I just solved the problem argued: parent category is now French atheists. PedroAcero76 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PedroAcero76, This was *JUST* settled Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_18#Category:Atheist_writers. Are you really going to have us relitigate this? Mason (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: you settled "atheist writers", not this one. Btw, in your opinion Category:French Roman Catholic writers is useless, too, and should be renamed to Category:French writers on Roman Catholicism (I guess the same problem with Category:Roman Catholic writers, and so on...). Am I right? Too many issues you settled with such a short discussion, imo. But the worst thing is that you messed it all up. PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I would encourage you to assume good faith instead of what you have written here. Mason (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PedroAcero76 " But the worst thing is that you messed it all up." is inappropriate and not in good faith. Mason (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I do assume good faith, but a bad result. One consequence will be that the new category will be an empty one: Jean Meslier didn't write on atheism, neither Marcel Proust did (he was just a novelist). In fact, Meslier wrote on Catholicism: he was a harsh critic of Roman Catholicism. So you will get an empty, useless category, mistaking concepts. That's what I tried to explain. I assume that we all try to improve Wikipedia, and I apologize if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. It wasn't my intention. PedroAcero76 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are better ways to express your concerns including not attributing the outcome of the CFD to me. You have made many assumptions about what I believe and that I am somehow responsible for the consequences of the CFD. Mason (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also you are much better off discussing this in the CFD instead of here. Mason (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you mean that Category:Atheist philosophers (which possibly makes "writers on Atheism" redundant, imho) is an equally trivial intersection? I hope not... so you see that some intersections between religious conviction and occupation are definitely relevant. And writer is one of these occupations imo. PedroAcero76 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PedroAcero76 please review EGRS. I still strongly encourage you (singular) to be more careful about making sweeping statements. You (singular) seem to not really understand the process, as your (singular) what-about argument isn't relevant to the question at hand. A more effective argument would be to demonstrate that the intersection between being an atheist and being a writer is defining, rather than to point out that being roman catholic and a writer has the same problem. Mason (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't understand this proposal at all. It would be like changing Women writers to be Writers on women or Albanian writers to be Writers on Albania. Who a person is is separate from what their work focuses upon. Just because some writer is an atheist doesn't mean that they write on atheism and not all writers who write on atheism are atheists. But then, I was against the change from State of Person/Thing to being Person/Thing doing something on that State.
And, by the way, Category:Colombian atheist writers and Category:Austrian atheist writers are empty categories. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point, but that only means we should Purge those writers who also happen(ed) to be atheists but didn't write anything about it, because that would be a trivial crosscat. It's a bit like Uzbekistani singer-songwriters who are Star Trek fans: unless their songs are actually about Star Trek, it's a trivial intersection. But Songs about Star Trek could be a legitimate subcategory of Category:Songs about television, and if you've got enough singer-songwriters specifically dedicated to writing Trekkie songs, you could split them by nationality.
Similarly, I agree with the point made above that e.g. Category:French Roman Catholic writers should be renamed to Category:French writers on Roman Catholicism (or just 'Catholicism'), and that all French writers who just so happen(ed) to be Roman Catholics, but didn't really write about it, should be Purged. It's been the dominant religion in France for centuries; Catholicism was the default religion of every single writer, so that is not a notable attribute.
As for the Colombian and Austrian cats, @Smasongarrison emptied them out of process. Colombia had Gustavo Álvarez Gardeazábal and Héctor Abad Faciolince, Austria had Sigmund Freud. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, I was purging them per the previous CFD. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers Mason (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the result of that CfR was to Purge the parent Category:Writers on Atheism. Although it is reasonable to apply that to its subcategories as well, this was not explicitly discussed and agreed upon in that CfR. It might be stretching the result, although I'm not sure.
At any rate, why did you purge them? Why not recategorise them to parent Category:Writers on Atheism? It seems that, if not exactly writing "on atheism", they at least did/do write criticism of religion. Your recategorisation does not seem to have taken that into account. I'll grant that we haven't got a Category:Writers critical of religion or something, but we do have Category:Books critical of religion, and Category:Critics of religions. I think these three either belong in Category:Writers on Atheism or Category:Critics of religions, wouldn't you agree? NLeeuw (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it wasn't explicitly discussed. However, at the time of the purge decision, there were only one or two people in the main category. So I assumed that the purge recommendation was applicable to the subcategories otherwise, what would have the point of closing with a purge nomination.
I didn't consider any of them were actually writers about atheism. I moved them into atheists and writers categories, where they did belong. The whole point of purging is to remove people who don't fit the scope of the category. Recategorizing them to the parent would definitely not been in the spirit of the purge. Mason (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. Alright, then you did nothing wrong. :) NLeeuw (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
😁 Mason (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz There is a difference between "atheist writers" and "writers on atheism". Someone doesn't have to be an atheist to write about atheism, and someone who is an atheist could write about topics completely unrelated to atheism. Just like someone doesn't have to be Albanian to write about Albania, nor does someone have to be a woman to write about women. Likewise, not all Albanian writers write about Albania, and not all women writers write about women. So, in theory, there could even be two separate lists for all those things. So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons. Vontheri (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Vontheri, that's exactly the point I was making so need to set me straight. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was agreeing with you... what do you mean by "need to set [you] straight"? Did you think I was disagreeing with you?
Even if I were disagreeing, I hope I would not be doing so in a tone that came across as "setting someone straight". Maybe it's just me, but I consider "setting someone straight" as being a type of "being condescending to someone". So I hope I was not coming across as uncivil in any way, and if I was then I would appreciate suggestions as to how I could express my thoughts better as I see incivility as a tremendous problem with Wikipedia -- definitely in the top two or three problems if not #1.
The only place thing I said that possibly by quite a stretch could be considered "disagreeing" is the last sentence where I said "So, really, either choice of name is kind of problematic, and the two hypothetical lists would not include exactly the same persons." by which I meant that perhaps the ideal solution would be to have two separate lists for each topic/issue/whatever. There would likely be a lot of overlap but how else could we choose between just one of the two types of lists when they are not synonymous? Vontheri (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not read so much into words. You pinged me and then stated what I thought I had said as if you were introducing a new point of view, contrary to mine. Otherwise, why ping me? But I misread the sequence of words, my mistake. Time to move on. Not sure why this discussion was relisted again. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you because, due to the relisting and requirement that further responses be made under the relisting line, otherwise it would have not been immediately noticeable which part of the discussion I was responding to. Vontheri (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this discussion be closed? There is no point in yet another relisting. No one has commented since the last relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. There seems to be a misunderstanding by the opposers here - the intention is indeed to change the scope of the categories so that it is WP:DEFINING, meaning that some of the category members will no longer fit and so will need to be purged. A writer who happens to be athiest isn't defining - it's only defining if they actually write about athiesm. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:55, 27 March 2024 (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:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Nazis who died by suicide in the United States

Category:Savannah Bananas players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 27#Category:Savannah Bananas players

Category:Fantasy wrestling

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category apart from the main article. The other articles in the category were Extreme Warfare, Kinnikuman, and Category:Wrestling in anime and manga but those were removed as unrelated to fantasy wrestling, a type of online game. Mika1h (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2024 (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:Anaheim Angels minor league affiliates

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAP. Many of these teams are the same because the parent team only changed their nicknames, not there location. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, this is similar to nicknames/seasons categorization. These are the only ones I could find where they changed their name but remained in the same location. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2024 (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:Economy of Yarmouth, Maine

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per NARROWCAT. Only two entries. User:Namiba 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (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/2024_March_19&oldid=1216055099"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 19, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.