From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24

Category:Flags by issue

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Flags by issue

Category:Failed assassination attempt survivors

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#Category:Failed assassination attempt survivors

Category:American politicians who switched parties in office

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: listify. MER-C 13:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. Many of the articles do not even mention party switching and few of them include the fact in their introduction. TM 11:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Listify I'd say that throwing away all your beliefs to join another party is about as defining as you can get in the average political career, it should be mentioned more prominently in those articles that don't at present. We've had a Category:Party switching for a decade. However, the British and Canadian equivalents are done as lists and that's probably a better way to do it. PS Thanks to that category I now know the Kiwis call it Waka-jumping, as in jumping ship or in their case a canoe. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I could not agree less. Even in this current political era, it is NOT a trivial matter to switch political affiliation. For better or for worse, it is a major step for a serious politician to abandon his/her party for another. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Listify: we've done this as a list in the UK context, as Le Deluge says, and it works well as such. Switching party in office is something to talk about in prose, not a category of people. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I saw this category added to a politician that I know switched parties, and it seemed appropriate. I agree with Anomalous+0's argument that it is "NOT a trivial matter...." -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I think the hang-up hear is the word defining. According to Wikipedia, a defining characteristic is not really a matter of opinion. Instead, it is "...one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." That is why I noted that many of the articles in this category do not even MENTION party-switching or include it merely as an aside. Given this definition (which is Wikipedia policy), I hope those of you who oppose deleting (or listifying and deleting, which I support) will reconsider your comments.-- TM 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Listify in order to retain information that is neither trivial nor defining. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I think it is generally a defining characteristic. If the article doesn't mention it, though, I don't think it should necessarily be categorised. SportingFlyer T· C 20:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Listify. Good for trivia, not for a category here.-- Darwinek ( talk) 22:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Listify. Significant, but not defining. It's also a little tricky to define: Does it count if they just renounce membership and say "I'm independent", or if they're nominated by more than one party, or if they run for re-election on a different ticket but get voted out of office? - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Listify per Le Deluge who just taught me a cool fact! :D – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:10, 2 May 2019 (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:Friends

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 top categories to Category:Friends (1994 TV series) and consistent sub-category names Category:Friends (1994 TV series) characters, Category:Friends (1994 TV series) character redirects to lists, Category:Friends (1994 TV series) episodes, Category:Friends (1994 TV series) seasons; but no consensus over episode categories by season. Note that other episode-by-season sub-categories within Category:American television episodes by series currently do not disambiguate, e.g. Category:Angel (season 1) episodes, Category:House (season 1) episodes, Category:Lost (season 1) episodes, so these Friends episodes categories will not be eligible for speedy renaming to match the parent. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: DAB from Category:Friendship. Although Talk:Friends (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 April 2019 was closed as "no consensus" in the article space, categories usually have a higher threshold for primacy, also because unlike article names, category names are usually plural there's a greater risk of confusion, see WP:PLURALPT and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 28#Category:Wells (when the article was at just "Wells") and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Tours (even though the article is still at Tours). There are other cases such as Category:Plymouth, Devon/ Plymouth and Category:Perth, Western Australia/ Perth. As noted the Commons category is at Commons:Category:Friends (TV series) (with Commons:Category:Friends about friendship). Category:Friends (sitcom) is another possibility. I welcome suggestions for better disambiguation of the 10 different season categories. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose I'm a big fan of articles and categories having the same title unless there is something really compelling. I don't think anyone is going to confuse this with the concept of friendship--has anyone actually seen any articles miscategorized this way? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    I'm not aware of any miscategorization but no evidence of that actually happening with Wells, Tours or Plymouth was presented at those CFDs. I think the point is that because the topic has a tenuous claim to primacy in the article namespace we should definitely disambiguate it in the category namespace. Also maybe the target should omit the "U. S." per WP:PRECISION thus Category:Friends (1994 TV series)? as noted at the RM. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Koavf: see WanderingWanda's comment below of miscategorized. See also this comment about singular and plurals for example, although I agree that the Somerset city is clearly not primary for "Wells" even in article space (Friends in article space is less clear cut but I still don't think its primary). Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename. Just because the person is in the category doesn't mean they are friends with the other people in the category. :) I might be more comfortable with a short name, e.g. Category:Friends (TV series). Either way, just "Friends" needs to be made more specific. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename. Definitely could lead to confusion even if only a small amount, whether it be the concept or the many other shows. -- NikkeKatski [Elite] ( talk) 13:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Rename selectively to Category:Friends (TV series). Keep episodes as they are. I do not think we need to change these, as no other uses of "Friends" will have episodes. We need to charge the root category, because of other uses. Even if there are other TV series called Friends, this one is clearly the leading meaning. Crossreferences to others can be dealt with by an "other uses" capnote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    I don't think a partial disambiguation is a good idea especially considering the article may eventually be moved (and I doubt that there would be consensus to partially disambiguate) however I agree that the episodes could stay as is. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose but would support Peterkingiron's suggestion of renaming the parent category Friends (TV series). I don't think there's a DAB problem here, Friends is well known internationally, and the other definition of "friends" isn't a proper category name. SportingFlyer T· C 22:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral on the renaming as I personally agree that it's insane that somehow Friends is a primary when the dab page has dozens of entries with articles all titled as such, but since it's still at that page, then usually categories should match it. That said, if the category is changed, I support as a first option "Friends (1994 TV series)" - as both "(TV series)" and "(U.S. TV series)" are insufficient from the other US TV series, so moving from one insufficient name to the other is pointless. As a secondary option "(1994 U.S. TV series)" if people think the U.S. is needed. Also strongly oppose any change to the category tree which makes sub-categories not match the parent - so if the parent is moved to "Friends (1994 TV series)" (or anything else), all sub-categories should match that. That makes category navigation and searching much easier and is more correct. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    Yes I agree so when a topic is excessively ambiguous in article space its even more so in category space, see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20#Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides in which case the category is disambiguated even though the article is at Small Isles and there isn't currently any other articles called "Small Isles" on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support. After some digging I did find a case where someone mistakingly added the Friends tag to a friendship-related article: link. WanderingWanda ( talk) 00:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename. Categories with misleading names are asking for trouble. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please note that "U.S." is not supported anymore and all uses are now using "American" instead per recent RfC. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply
    Yes Category:Friends (1994 American TV series) or Category:Friends (1994 TV series) should be used now, the main point is disambiguating it. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:39, 24 June 2019 (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:Referendums by cause

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. to Category:Referendums by issue (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 00:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Referendums are about issues. The poor choice of words here resulted in this category being given the completely non-sensical parent Category:Causes of events -- which was where I first came across it 2 weeks ago. I immediately replaced that parent cat with Category:Categories by issue. All that remains is to rename to Category:Referendums by issue, which properly reflects the contents of the category. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Query Who's to say what the "cause" or "issue" is? In the Irish " Repeal the 8th" referendum, was the issue the bodily integrity of women ("My body, my choice") or the right to life of all persons ("Love both")? Does Wiki have to adjudicate on "the issue" of every referendum? Not something that wiki is supposed to do. I think that another word or words is needed. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    I'm afraid I am at a loss to understand what any of that has to do with the um, issue, at hand. There are 17 subcategories for referenda that deal with 17 different "issues", and 16 of them have nothing to do with abortion. This category just needs to be renamed using that term instead of "causes". It's really that simple. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 10:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
There is agreement that "cause" is wrong but I remain unconvinced that "issue" is correct. Something like "topic" or "theme" is closer to what is meant without having the crusading connotations of the other two words. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. An issue is more encompassing than 'cause' which carries a number of meanings with it. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, "cause" is a wrong descriptor of the category content. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have no preference for "issue", "topic" or "theme" as a target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • REname -- "issue" or "topic" would do fine. "Cause" is unsatisfactory as not broad enough. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2019 (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:Songs written by Aphex Twin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 2#Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin

Category:Kidnapped African children

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) DannyS712 ( talk) 02:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: Category:Kidnapped children contains subcategories of countries, not continents. Gjs238 ( talk) 02:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I do not think that categorization by continent is really a problem but the category should only be kept if it can be expanded. If not kept, merge to parent categories instead of plainly delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meanwhile the category is sufficiently populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - After reading the article this category was evidently created for, I am further convinced that it serves a valid purpose. As well as serving as a parent/container for the African subcats I added, it also provides a measure of proper categorization for people who were kidnapped in/from Africa as children in order to serve as slaves. Not only were they kidnapped from Africa -- they were kidnapped precisely because they were African. And it's more than incidental that there is no way to categorize them by nationality‎. In short, this category serves two valid purposes. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 09:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge In general continental categories add an extra layer to the hierarchy to no advantage - there's only ~200 countries in the world which on the high side but which doesn't need dividing. There's a couple of exceptions such as sports which are organised by continental confederations, but in general I'd avoid categorising by continent. Le Deluge ( talk) 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    Actually, if you look at Category:Categories by continent you will see that there are tons of such categories. But even if that were not so, Africa is a special case in any event, because of its history in terms of the Slave Trade (both European and Arab) and colonization. To ignore that is to compound the crime. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Eh I'm sorry, but I hope you all understand that populating this category shouldn't be hard since millions of Africans were kidnapped into slavery, among whom plenty of children. And if you want to go "ah but that's continent, not nations, and we should have nations" then you're fetishizing nationhood to a ridiculous extent. Note that Redoshi was kidnapped from what is today called Benin, but God knows where exactly she came from (maybe the Kingdom of Dahomey?), and Benin wasn't a "country" until 1960. Drmies ( talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Reply On the contrary, categories referring to things that happened before nation states is another of those potential exceptions. OTOH, kidnapping is defined as unlawful abduction, and if there is no nation state then there's no rule of law to define what kidnapping is. But how many articles are we really talking about, of children notable enough for an article whose most defining characteristic is that they were kidnapped from an area that's not clearly defined as a country? So far Redoshi is the only one - and she could easily be upmerged to Category:Kidnapped children which only has 16 articles at present. And I'd argue that her notability comes not from her kidnap but first and foremost from the fact she was a slave so I'd concentrate on where she fits in the slavery categories. Le Deluge ( talk) 15:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Wait wait wait. Le Deluge, I think I just heard you say stealing children and selling them into slavery is not a crime if there isn't a nation with a book of law or something. And that somehow this craziness should be reflected in our categorization. "So far Redoshi is the only one"--yeah. And? And why would you want to merge her into the parent category? It does not matter to you that she was from Africa, and you want that disappeared too? Would you like to propose renaming the article to her slave name, while we're at it? Drmies ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
BTW I am populating this category; 14 already. Drmies ( talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Thank you for doing that. I just finished adding a passage to the article for John Jea explicitly noting that he and his family were kidnapped by slave traders. Similar passages should be added to the other articles as well. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • As I just said above, Africa is indeed a special case because of its history in terms of the Slave Trade (both Arab and European) and Colonization. The people who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were robbed of their history, their culture, and their humanity. Let's not compound the crime. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 20:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep relevant category with historical significance. Inter&anthro ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think you fundamentally misunderstand categories and subcats. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Relevant category, with much scope for expansion. Dimadick ( talk) 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Relevant category, and once a country has enough articles to pass WP:SMALLCAT we can downmerge those to the country. SportingFlyer T· C 20:13, 26 April 2019 (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:Images of history maps

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 2#Category:Images of history maps

Category:History of philosophy images

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 2#Category:History of philosophy images

Encyclopedias by language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Encyclopedias by language

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_24&oldid=904473411"