Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Category:WCMX athletes[edit]

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry; WP:OCAT#SMALL, unlikely to be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, fair point, but on the other hand Category:Wheelchair sports competitors is now a supercategory consisting only of subcategories. That is neater than having it consist only of subcategories plus one lonely page for Aaron Fotheringham. It's like having one spoon in the fork drawer. Whether that trumps Category:WCMX athletes being a category of one is matter of taste I guess. Either way is OK with me.
But I mean maybe an editor will come the category page and be like "oh here's this lone guy that somebody put in the supercat, I'll just put it in it's correct subcat" and then they are going to down a blind alley... maybe.Herostratus (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It's just SMALLCAT ruling. --Just N. (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2021 (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:Racing drivers killed in aviation accidents or incidents[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. This is similar to those categories already deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:29, 4 November 2021 (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:LGBT people by sexual orientation[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I propose reverting the moves decided here, because these three categories include asexual people, who by definition are not LGBT. See also this related discussion. —capmo (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, asexual people belong to LGBTQIA (redirect) people of which LBGT is the shorter and more often used synonym. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is it a synonym or an abbreviation? Is it an abbreviated synonym? Is it synonyotic abbreviation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: It's not clear to me what you are opposing; were your questions directed toward me, or the person who voted above you? —capmo (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My whimsical questions were directed to Marco. My opposition rationale is the same as his. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. LGBT is basically just a shortened way of saying "people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex" but no one wants to say that, so instead we say LGBT. Asexual people count.
    Further, we should mimic the language used in the article, so expanding to the longer LGBTQIA isn't appropriate.
    Finally, this category is about people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex (i.e. LGBTQIA people, more commonly known as LGBT people) by their sexual orientation, as it pertains to them not fitting the societal norms. So LGBT needs to be in the name. And because it's not specific enough, the categories "People by sexual orientation" etc will invite the creation of "heterosexual people", "allosexual people", and "people whose sexual orientation is unknown", and I doubt anyone cares to have those subcategories. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The article on asexuality states that (bold by me):

"Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity, for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or by the following terms to indicate that they associate with the romantic, rather than sexual, aspects of sexual orientation:

  • aromantic; lack of romantic attraction towards anyone
  • biromantic; by analogy to bisexual
  • heteroromantic; by analogy to heterosexual
  • homoromantic; by analogy to homosexual
  • panromantic; by analogy to pansexual"
I agree that some of these self identifications fall under the LGBT umbrella term, but clearly not all of them. How can we include a person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? —capmo (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xurizuri already gave the answer above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See collected reasons above. --Just N. (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged, Xurizuri, and Justus Nussbaum: None of you addressed the argument presented in my comment above. An asexual person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic is not LGBT. —capmo (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they need a new category. What about Category:People by non sexual orientation or Category:People by sexual non orientation? What's one more neologism after all? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm just going to quote what I said earlier: Finally, this category is about people who in some way don't fit the societal norms around sexuality, gender, and sex (i.e. LGBTQIA people, more commonly known as LGBT people). Asexual people are part of the LGBTQIA community (that's what the A is, if it wasn't self-evident) and they do not experience attraction in a way that fits societal norms. It is frankly insulting to say that they don't really belong, just because some asexual people experience heterosexual or heteroromantic attraction. Asexuality is not about who you're attracted to, it's about how you experience attraction. I know it wasn't your intention to be insulting, but it is a persistent issue that people will try to argue that some group is not really LGBTQIA, and it results in a lot of gatekeeping and discrimination. Basically, there's a lot of history here, and LGBT issues are complicated.
    However, just to clarify my initial explanation, I'll apply your argument to trans people because I think it may demonstrate the issue more clearly. So, you said How can we include a person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? and An asexual person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic is not LGBT. as a result of the quote: "Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity, for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual ..." I'm just going to directly replace each reference to asexuals with trans people. "Regarding ... sexual orientation ... trans people may identify as heterosexual ..." then How can we include a trans person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic in a subcategory of LGBTs? and A trans person who self identifies as heterosexual/heteroromantic is not LGBT. A trans person is LGBT simply because they are trans. Being heterosexual, allosexual, or not intersex does not "disqualify" them from the LGBTQIA community. The same is true for asexual people. They are LGBTQIA simply because they are asexual. Their other identities aren't important to that equation, because being asexual immediately means they are part of the community.
    Sorry, that's so long, I've tried to cut it down (I had more). I tend to write a lot. I will point out quickly that none of us are actually obligated to debate every point that anyone raises, and it is quite rude to ping us to insist that we do. Regardless, hopefully I gave enough information to address your concern (imagine if I wrote all of this and none of it was helpful, I would cry). --Xurizuri (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we get this dang thing closed? --Xurizuri (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2021 (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:I Can See Your Voice (German game show)[edit]

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. BD2412 T 07:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: @Saisønisse: RTL officially renewed I Can See Your Voice for the third season, and this time under the German title Zeig uns deine Stimme, which emanated from Daniel Hartwich's tagline before the stage of truth performance.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Weis, Manuel (3 November 2021). "RTL setzt "I can see your Voice" unter neuem Namen fort". Medienmagazin DWDL (in German). Retrieved 3 November 2021.
  2. ^ Riedmeier, Glenn (3 November 2021). "Aus "I Can See Your Voice" wird "Zeig uns deine Stimme": RTL-Musikrateshow erhält neue Chance". Wunschliste (in German). Retrieved 4 November 2021.
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.

Magazines reestablished[edit]

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 all. bibliomaniac15 20:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Following precedents at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_25#Category:Magazines_reestablished_in_1795, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_1#Category:Newspapers_reestablished_in_1945, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_26#Category:Magazines_reestablished_in_1924 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_12#Category:Magazines_reestablished_in_2010, where William nominated only WP:SMALLCATs, but other participants seemed to support merging in principle, regardless of smallness. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator and previous cfds. Oculi (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- It might be appropriate to add "(or re-established)" to the headnotes of the targets, but we are unlikely to get a significant population for any re-established category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No real distinction. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. And please effectuate the proposal of Peterkingiron to add "(or re-established)" to the headnotes of the targets. --Just N. (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2021 (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 by occupation and ethnicity[edit]

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: speedy keep. Somewhat a procedural close, somewhat a SNOW close. The proposal seems to imply wanting to delete hundreds of un-listed subcategories as well. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category (and all its subcategories) clearly violates WP:EGRS. The intersection of ethnicity and occupation is almost never a defining characteristic of any person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is quite often a defining characteristic. In any case Category:People by occupation and ethnicity is a container category so deleting it will affect no articles at all, while leaving hundreds of subcats adrift. Oculi (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think these categories are overused and should be cut back, but there clearly are some which are defining - musicians, commonly, many Jewish categories, African- Americans ...Rathfelder (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is appropriate as a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Oculi. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2021 (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:Emlyon Business School[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article and a sub-cat for alumni, which are already linked to each other, so this category is not necessary for navigation. The linked category i French Wikipedia also has a category for faculty, but none of those tutors have articles in enwiki. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The faculty category was created. Several tutors have an enwiki. The global category is essential to make the link between alumni, faculty and the school page. --WKPDA3 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with only two subcategories it is still doable to link them directly with a "See also" note, without the need for a parent category. That happens by default with Albums by artist and Songs by artist. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WKPDA3. Maybe somebody (WKPDA3?) could do a little more recherche to remove any SMALLCAT and small potential suspicion? --Just N. (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (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:Flying boats in production[edit]

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a particulary useful category, not something that has been done for other aircraft types and has little encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We don't usually categorize aircraft by production status. - ZLEA T\C 14:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as ZLEA notes, we don't categorise aircraft (or as far as I can tell any other commercial/industrial product) by their production status. This is also getting well into smallcat territory - it had two members (one of which I removed because there were no sources that actually confirmed that the type was in production).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I must say "we don't usually..." is not a strong argument. But production status is impossible to keep up - some type have repeatedly gone out of producton, then in again, perhaps under a new name. Besides, we don't want too many categories - remember the "twin engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles" :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If this contained anything (which it does not) it would be an attempt to have a current/past distinction, which is not allowed. However the parent contains 522 articles which is so large that it needs splitting, perhaps by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, a list can justify what "in production" is supposed to mean, and have "as of" statements to show when it was checked last for list inclusion. There certainly are such aircraft in production, so the list wouldn't be empty. Perahsp @Armduino: the category's creator can build the list? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2021 (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:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

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. Per consensus, deleting a category that has been repeatedly recreated and repeatedly deleted in many forms for more than a decade. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to serve the same purpose as the previously-created Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perhaps the category description could be refined, but the purpose is distinct. We have a set of articles on MCU characters as distinctly MCU characters (e.g. Stephen Strange (Marvel Cinematic Universe)). This category contains characters who are Marvel Comics characters (the article is primarly about the character as it appears in the comic books), who happen to appear in the MCU, but lack MCU-specific articles (e.g. Ancient One). BD2412 T 05:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "happen to" does not sound like it is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a comic book character, it absolutely can be. It depends on the breadth of the depiction, but of the thousands of notable comic book characters, a relative handful have been selected for adaptation in one of the dozens of MCU films, and a handful of those have been prominently featured in those films. For the aforementioned Ancient One it certainly is, and is prominently noted in the lede of that article. Accord, Batroc the Leaper, Frigga (character), Justin Hammer, Aldrich Killian, Proxima Midnight, Betty Brant, and so on. BD2412 T 04:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters which is for characters we already have articles for; we have Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe character redirects to lists for character redirects; we have Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe original characters for original characters that have articles. I don't see a point in tagging all those comic book articles (and catgegories(!)).
If we want to list in this category every character that appeared in the MCU then the correct route would be to use Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters and tag the primary MCU redirect from Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe character redirects to lists with that category. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonnym. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonnym. - (a)nnihilation97 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (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:Harry J. Anslinger[edit]

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, without prejudice to creating a new Category:Commissioners of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics or Category:Drug enforcement officers in United States (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)----[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Why does this person have a category? The subcategory doesn't belong here, and the two entries are just things he was associated with. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (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/2021_November_4&oldid=1059721318"