Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18
May 20 >

May 19

[edit]

Category:KAI spacecraft

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Shouldn't be using abbreviation grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at Watford

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, burials categories should be organized by burial place, not by populated place. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any rule giving guidance on this - where do I find this? If you look within Category:Burials in Hertfordshire, there are several similar categories which have not been contested. I created this Watford category to be consistent with the existing categorisation scheme. This was after Charles Morison (MP for Tavistock) was repeatedly removed from Category:Burials in Hertfordshire, when I was told that only subcategories were allowed. Now I'm told the subcategories aren't allowed either? Why is only one article and one subcategory being contested? What about all the other subcategories and articles? It would be more useful I think to have a clear and consistent idea of where all this content belongs, rather than just deleting one category, as this will be confusing. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks, but that's not a Wikipedia guideline, it's a discussion from 10 years ago buried away in an archive. No editor can reasonably be expected to know about that. But what I'm saying is that you need to consider Category:Burials in Hertfordshire as a whole, not single out one item. There are 54 pages and 5 subcategories in this category which will all have to be recategorised as a matter of consistency - if they are removed/deleted, it will be very hard to put them back into place. Cnbrb (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well now as someone is now busy removing a number of articles from this category, it's going to be very difficult to find all these again and recategorise them into something appropriate. I give up. Cnbrb (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction books by Jilly Cooper

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-fiction books just go in the "books by" category, no need to have a subcat --woodensuperman 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital Literacy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Delete or merge. Gjs238 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consorts of Brandenburg

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, if "consorts" should be kept it should at least be consorts of margraves and electors of Brandenburg, but "margavrines and electresses" is shorter. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paraíba river stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are less than 60 articles in the stub category; propose upmerge - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players who have won the Magic: The Gathering World Championship

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Verbose name (CC) Tbhotch™ 11:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan neurosurgeons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Afghan surgeons.
See More

Also nominating for merge:

Category:Sports competitions in Europe by region

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, none of the five subcategories is properly about a region. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some regions have been added to the category (1, 2, 3, 4). Does this change people's thoughts about the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING and sacrifice itself is perhaps POV. Countless articles would needed to be included in here if this were to be populated. Gotitbro (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_24#Category:People_who_have_sacrificed_their_lives_to_save_others
This is just deletionism and doesn't help Wikipedia as a project. Blockhaj (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we are at it, we still should rename the category. Several better names were mentioned in the previous discussion, e.g. Category:People who died due to efforts to save lives. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats an unconventional description. Selfsacrifice and thereof is the status quo. Blockhaj (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "no consensus" result of the previous CFD, with the recommendation to seek a rename in the future, should be taken into account. I am opposed to deletion based only on arguments used before in that discussion, because there is no reason to rehash those again. NLeeuw (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify based on WP:CSC. Given the disputable nature of all claimed self-sacrifices, and the risk of WP:POV, I think this collection of articles is unfit for a category, because categories – as a project space – cannot provide WP:RS for contestable claims. The only way to make this fit for Wikipedia is to have consistent selection criteria, and reliable sources to back the claims up. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything without the need to prove it. Self-sacrifice in particular can easily get out of control without a properly defined scope, e.g. some people may claim that Christian martyrs died to "save" the "souls" of "others" in the "afterlife", and so such martyrs should all be included, even though there is no objective evidence of any afterlife, let alone Christian versions of it. And so on. Plus, are we only to count those scenarios in which the self-sacrifice was a "success", or also those who tried but "failed" (either because they didn't die or "the others" didn't survive)? Surely we Wikipedians are not in a position to adjudicate the intentions and outcomes of such actions. Even reliable sources may sometimes not be able to answer such questions. NLeeuw (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suspect that this is heading again towards no consensus, but let's try a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Nederlandse Leeuw. --woodensuperman 10:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what about anyone who ever died in a war, etc.? --woodensuperman 10:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great point. The problem with that is of course WP:CRYSTAL: it presumes that x amount of Fooian civilians are going to die at the hands of the Barian invaders unless y amount of Fooian soldiers sacrifice themselves in battle against the Barian invaders, presuming that y is a smaller number than x, and therefore the "sacrifice" is all worth it (and a noble deed etc.). Even if that logic may in many historical scenarios seemingly hold true, we cannot predict the future, or know how else history would have gone if y amount of Fooian soldiers HADN'T "sacrificed" themselves. In other words, it is unfalsifiable, because a historical event happens only once; you can't re-run the experiment by changing one factor and see if the outcome is different (as you could in a laboratory).
    It could be that, ultimately, WP:CRYSTAL will make even listification impossible, because it requires us to have knowledge or reasonable extrapolation about what would have happened if person A didn't "sacrifice" themselves to "save" person B. Because such knowledge doesn't exist, and such extrapolation may well amount to no more than WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (with no sourcing) or WP:POV (with poor sourcing). NLeeuw (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in mythology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, nearly all subcategories are called "locations" and "locations" is used more than "places" generally, see Category:Categories by location. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Africa, Asia and Europe are locations, but they aren't places. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: How are continents not places? Place and location are synonymous. OED defines place as "A particular part or region of space; a physical locality, a locale; a spot, a location. Also: a region or part of the earth's surface." Cambridge Dictionary defines location as "a place or position". If anything, I'd say location conveys more specificity in terms of a precise place, and I'd be less likely to call a continent a location. Mclay1 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mclay1: do you want to discuss the entire tree? If so, I can relist and tag them. As a help for future closers, are you in favor of renaming to "locations" for consistency if there is no consensus for "places"? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @HouseBlaster: Yes, I think we should discuss the entire tree. I'm not in favour of renaming just the mythology categories to "locations" because it would be inconsistent with the higher categories in the tree and I think they should take precedent. If the higher categories get renamed as well to "locations" then fine, but I still prefer "places". Mclay1 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag all of the subcategories. Further comments would be especially welcome :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_19&oldid=1291382755"