Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10

< September 9 September 11 >

September 10

Category:Towns in Ternopil Oblast

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:Towns in Ternopil Oblast

Category:Games with force feedback support

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) Qwerfjkltalk 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Games with force feedback support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining category for a very common game feature. Additionally, the parent article was deleted by AfD. IceWelder [✉] 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not affect the category being non-defining, though. See also WP:Defining. IceWelder [✉] 14:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the related AFD came to a clear consensus that this isn’t a defining feature and I don’t see how adding Haptic_technology#Force_feedback to the category changes that.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2022 (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.

Set indices on tropical cyclones

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Set indices on tropical cyclones

Greek politics

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. The sub-cats for politicians have not been nominated and are therefore not covered by this consensus. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:15th century in Greek politics
  • Propose deleting Category:16th century in Greek politics
  • Propose deleting Category:17th century in Greek politics
  • Propose deleting Category:18th century in Greek politics
Nominator's rationale: delete, Greek politics did not exist until 1830 when Greece became independent of the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is politics in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2022 (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.

Capital District (New York)

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Harmonise category names with each other and with the lead article, which was recently moved (without discussion) to Capital District (New York). – Fayenatic London 12:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the move seems to have generated no opposition and the rationale appears valid. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2022 (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:People fined in the Partygate scandal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:People fined in the Partygate scandal

Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is WP:NONDEFINING, as for most of the people in the category, they are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer, but are notable in their own right. In particular, many of the people in this category are footballers themselves, so being in a relationship with a footballer is not at all unusual or defining. Also, doesn't have a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, as should it include e.g. ex-wifes and ex-girlfriends, and BLP issues around keeping this up-to-date Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Having a blanket category covering only female partners of footballers, many of whom are notable in their own right, is non-defining. According to a note on the talk page, the page was originally intended only to cover WAGs, i.e. individuals who've been explicitly referred to in sources as falling under that umbrella. Well if that's the case it ought to be renamed to Category:WAGs and ruthlessly pruned so that only sourced explicitly-known WAGs are included. I'd also argue that definition is non-neutral too, but at least it would be more fitting for a category.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be both non-defining and a BLP gossip-mongering nightmare. Spike 'em (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subcat of Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, renamed at cfd from Category:WAGs in 2008 or so and discussed at cfd many times. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of a parent category does not preclude the issues with this particular subcategory. The other subcategories seem to actually be about people known for being "WAGs", the association football category is just anyone who's ever dated a footballer, which is neither encyclopedic nor a defining characteristic for any of them. WP:OSE isn't a valid reason to keep this. Also, the parent category should be Category:WAGs anyway, as that matches the article title (so WP:C2D should apply to it). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the relevance of this category for people whose notability and media references are often/usually tied to their relationship with a footballer, but in it are overwhelmingly those being categorised on a non-defining characteristic. There's also no denying that misused in this way it's an embarrassingly sexist categorisation. Not sure what the solution to this might be, perhaps renamed in some way to make it clearer that simply dating a footballer once doesn't mean being categorised this way. The suggestion of "WAG" is along the right lines, but the problem with that is it is a term little known outside the UK. I also realise that this, and similar categorised have been discussed before here. I'd suggest that this is indication of it being a problematic categorisation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether you like it or not, the acronym WAG and the term "wives and girlfriends" are widely used in the media. It makes no sense to delete it. Totally irrelevant whether the person is famous/notable in their own right. If they weren't, they would not have a Wiki article in the first place. Plus they are plenty of articles were the subject is included in categories that are not the main defining category. Examples would include nationality categories, year of birth and death categories and peoples occupation categories. Djln Djln (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used in the media to describe a few people, not most of the 200+ people listed in this category, and certainly has never been used for female sportspeople that are in same sex relationships with female footballers. A specific category limited only to people called WAGs in reliable sources would possibly be acceptable, but this categorisation including people who once dated a footballer 5 years ago is not- it's a BLP violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spike 'em. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers and previous discussions - I'm very dubious about "for most of the people in the category, they are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer". With a very few exceptions, such as Posh Spice and Pamela Anderson, their notability at least began from their WAG role, and despite the best efforts of their agents, has mostly remained so. In any case that a person is "known primarily for" simply is not a requirement for categorization. The category is not called Category:Current Association footballers' wives and girlfriends, so there is no issue with "exes", any more than there is with nearly all our people cats. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at any of them? I have removed from the category today dozens of women who are notable in their own right, but have been categorised here simply because of who they married/dated once. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A) yes, I looked at lots, B) whether they are "notable in their own right" is entirely irrelevant to whether they should be in this category. That depends on whether it is "defining" for them - a completely different thing. If you haven't grasped that you shouldn't be doing cfd. C) It is considered extremely bad form to gut categories while a discussion is ongoing. I will have to check your edits - excuse me if I use rollback when they need reverting. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A)Then you would have seen plenty who are not known primarily for being a wife/girlfriend of a footballer. Which you said you doubted. B) I understand the difference perfectly, if you read what I say above. C) I started removing these people before someone else raised this discussion. And I take it you didn't find any that needed reverting? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just plain stupid. I don't care if tabloids make a big deal of this stuff, they're not by any means the paragon of establishing notability or engaging in discretion as to the significance of reality. In short, a non-defining thing that too much space is devoted to by the worst type of press in the world. And if someone is only notable for this, then their article should be outright deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED. oknazevad (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it obviously is defining for some celebrities in the UK (and other countries), and pretending it's not is disingenuous. The role of Wikipedia shouldn't be to pick and choose what people are famous for.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not something we should see in a respectable encyclopaedia. It’s demeaning, tacky and belongs to a bygone era of drunken footballers like Gazza and Merson. Not in 2022, thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked some 15 articles at random and this was defining for none of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod, for many of these people (Colleen Rooney a prime example) their notability first arose from them being a prominent WAG, so it is defining. GiantSnowman 16:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an encyclopaedia's role is not to have a stance, but to merely document and describe. It is simply a fact many of these people under this category are notable mostly for being or having been the wife of a present or past footballer. And, let's be clear, this is not merely a UK thing - there are plenty of similar examples in Italy as well, to name one. --Angelo (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:17, 10 September 2022 (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:Funeral directors of Austria

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. The target is being discussed in another discussion linked below. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Funeral directors of Austria to Category:Death care companies
  • Propose merging Category:Funeral directors of Australia to Category:Death care companies
Nominator's rationale: merge, ambiguous category names that may well refer to individuals rather than companies. The categories are not well populated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the UK Funeral director seems to be used as much for companies as individuals. Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean in the real world. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point I suspected that too, but then I read Funeral director which does not make any mention of usage for companies. At the very least we should conclude that the term is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object "Death care company" is a very ugly American euphemism. The problem is that the two categories nominated each have one member, so that an upmerge might be an appropriate solution, but I could only accept that if the target was renamed to (say) Category:Funeral companies. Looking at its content, the British and Australian subcats are Funeral directors; two others are "funeral homes", so that the target ought to contain the word funeral. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will happily nominate the target for renaming but that can't go in this very discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 'Death Care company' is indeed a very ugly euphemism which I've never seen used before. They're certainly called Funeral Directors or Undertakers in British English. Unless the above two categories have been emptied by somebody, I would suggest they're deleted as SMALLCATs. But if there is a need to distinguish between people and companies, couldn't the category be called Category:Funeral directors (companies) of FOOland etc.? Sionk (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - these are both subcats with 1 article of Category:Death care companies and should certainly be upmerged. Those who object to the naming of the target should take it to cfd. Oculi (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt anyone would have success in changing the name of the top category, for an American website (assuming Americans call them Death Care companies), but for the sub-categories it's approporiate to use the local term. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree, but that is not what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have proposed renaming of the parent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_14#Category:Death_care_companies. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 14 September 2022 (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:Campaigns and movements in Wales

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:Campaigns and movements in Wales

Category:Fiction about astronomical locations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:Fiction about astronomical locations

Category:Consequences of wars

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: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name it as a WP:topic category rather than a set category, and move the article Effects of war down into it from the parent to be its main article. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:54, 10 September 2022 (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.

Moorish people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Moorish people

Moorish women

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) Qwerfjkltalk 07:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Moorish women
  • Propose deleting Category:Moorish women by century
  • Propose deleting Category:15th-century Moorish women
  • Propose deleting Category:16th-century Moorish women
Nominator's rationale: delete, Moorish is an outdated and ambiguous term. There is no need to merge, the tree contains two articles, one already in Category:Women of the Emirate of Granada, the other already in Category:16th-century Moroccan women. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:15th-century Moorish women has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I rely on the assurance that the articles already have more specific categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And now Category:16th-century Moorish women has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per my comments above. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 18 September 2022 (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.

Municipality categories in Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Municipality categories in Ukraine

Category:Cyber Ranges

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Category:Cyber Ranges

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_10&oldid=1111341659"