Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:46, 6 February 2018 editOculi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers248,148 edits →Category:Dolls of Bengal: dTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 19:53, 6 February 2018 edit undoLaurel Lodged (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,338 edits HRE reduxNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ==== ==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line --> <!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
==== Years in the Holy Roman Empire redux ====
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:* '''Propose merging''' ] to ] and to ]
:'''Nominator's rationale''' Per the advice of the closing admin of the first effort, am re-submitting this nomination minus the unfortunate error spotted by the keen-eyed admin. Had the admin's charity matched her eyesight, it might have been possible for me to delete the offending line from among the 20 other valid lines and the nomination could have proceeded. Alas, 'twas not to be. Maybe it's for the best as the original nomination did not gather much attention. BTW, if Tim wants to lob in his customary "not the purpose of SmallCat" objection, could I trouble him to expand on the thesis? Anyhoo... to the rationale - there are just not enough entries to justify their existence per ]. Decades are much more appropriate than years for the early centuries of the Empire. ] (]) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

==== Category:Cards of Bengal ==== ==== Category:Cards of Bengal ====
:* '''Propose deleting''' ] - {{lc1|Cards of Bengal}}<br /> :* '''Propose deleting''' ] - {{lc1|Cards of Bengal}}<br />

Revision as of 19:53, 6 February 2018

< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

NEW NOMINATIONS

Years in the Holy Roman Empire redux

Nominator's rationale Per the advice of the closing admin of the first effort, am re-submitting this nomination minus the unfortunate error spotted by the keen-eyed admin. Had the admin's charity matched her eyesight, it might have been possible for me to delete the offending line from among the 20 other valid lines and the nomination could have proceeded. Alas, 'twas not to be. Maybe it's for the best as the original nomination did not gather much attention. BTW, if Tim wants to lob in his customary "not the purpose of SmallCat" objection, could I trouble him to expand on the thesis? Anyhoo... to the rationale - there are just not enough entries to justify their existence per WP:SMALLCAT. Decades are much more appropriate than years for the early centuries of the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cards of Bengal

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, little potential for growth —swpb 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Miller surname

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME - no indication these are related. —swpb 19:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Dolls of Bengal

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for growth. —swpb 19:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wright

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME - no indication that people sharing this name are related —swpb 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Texas House of Representatives in 1848

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT —swpb 19:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Interdependence

Nominator's rationale: Category name is extremely vague, and scope is unclear. Existing members suggest there may be an existing category appropriate to merge to. —swpb 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Native American fashion designers

Nominator's rationale: Due to the semantic ambiguity of Native American, i.e. the question of whether it refers to all indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents or only the ones from the United States, Misplaced Pages has a standing practice of using the term in the latter, uncontroversial sense rather than the former, highly loaded one -- if a category is meant to be inclusive of everyone from Ellesmere Island to Tierra del Fuego, then we use the wording "Indigenous X of the Americas" (as witness parent category Category:Indigenous artists of the Americas and its other subcategories) rather than "Native American". It would also be acceptable to create the proposed rename as a separate category, and then move the four Canadians to it while retaining this as a US-specific subcategory, but with just 15 people filed here so far I'm not convinced that national subcategorization would be necessary yet. But what cannot happen is this category staying at this name, and being filed as a subcategory of US-specific categories, while simultaneously staying inclusive of Canadian Inuit and First Nations people. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Seperate out the First Nations individuals. THe reason this category is not being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is because in fashion design there is just not a long standing, transnational practice of the art in the sense that makes it a logical sub-cat of the generalized indigenous Americas artists category. I have to admit I am less than convinced that this is a case where the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is defining. In a category like Category:Native American potters the people involved often are using or at least highly influenced by ethnic practices, I am less than convinced this is the case in fashion design.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, one of the people who's been added here (the one who I was already familiar with, because I created her article in the first place through my work with WikiProject Film) is a costume designer who has worked exclusively on films in which what she had to design was traditional Inuit garb — and I just spotchecked several of the other articles, all of which explicitly stated that the subject incorporated indigenous influences into their clothing design, such as beadwork and fabric patterning. So I'm more comfortable with calling this a validly defining characteristic — and I don't believe the creator actually intended this to be restricted exclusively to Canada and the United States, either: I suspect that the real reason this isn't being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is just that either we don't have articles about indigenous clothing designers from south of the Rio Grande yet or we do and the creator just hasn't found them. I don't see any evidence that the creator intended to restrict its scope to "Canada/US only" — the usage note on the category page, in fact, says it's for designers from North and South America. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As creator of the category, I must say I intended it to be able to cover native fashion designers from anywhere in North and South America. For me, Native American (see here) is therefore the appropriate term but that may not be the case for North American usage. (I see, you Bearcat, are Canadian.) I just created the category yesterday and have populated it primarily with people from the United States and Canada as I am more familiar with their traditions. At WiR, we are in the process of expanding coverage of fashion designers and I expect that sooner or later we will have biographies of native fashion designers from Latin America too. I therefore have nothing against a change in line with the proposal although I think "Native American" is a more familiar term for users. Furthermore, it allows straightforward inclusion in Category:Native American people by occupation and Category:Native American artists. If it is to be moved to "Indigenous...", then probably all the other Native American occupation categories should be moved too. I note, btw, that there are only 13 subcategories in Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation compared to 23 in Category:Native American people by occupation. SusunW who proposed the category and Ser Amantio di Nicolao who has been involved in earlier discussions may also like to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The sources which refer to the topic clearly use Native American fashion designers with over 3 million hits for the topic. For indigenous fashion designers in the Americas the result is 963,000 hits, but note that the majority are titled Native American fashion designers. A narrowed search with quotations results in 177,000 articles for Native American fashion designers and 0 for indigenous fashion designers (and for First Nations fashion designers 5,540). In researching the article I am writing on the topic, it is very clear that the movement encompasses all of the Americas, with designers from the entirety competing in major fashion centers across the region. In fact, most of the South American designers I have been able to find information about was through the search for Native American fashion and their inclusion in fashion shows. The term "Native American fashion" refers specifically to people participating in haute couture, not artisans producing traditional clothing. Initially all the designers used a pan-Indian focus including recognizable elements of native cultures, to create a broad "market appeal" and acceptance for their work. As they gained acceptance, the trend has been to move away from broad focus and now design as representatives of their individual communities. Their designs may or may not include elements of their tribal heritage, but the defining characteristic is that they must be producing goods for the fashion industry (not craftwork) and must belong to a recognized indigenous identity. As both the museum industry and the fashion industry have recognized that this is a specific subgroup of fashion designers, I hardly see why we would not, to address John Pack Lambert's concerns. The potential for designers in the category is fairly substantial. I understand the logic of Bearcat's proposal and would have no problem with adding an additional category of indigenous designers, but as the sourcing validates the current naming scheme it seems illogical to eliminate it. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, just to be clear, we have some category trees where there's a more finely developed scheme of subcategorizing indigenous North American peoples more specifically than just one Ellesmere-to-Fuego sweep — "Native Americans" is an entirely appropriate term when the category is US-specific, but not when it's meant to be inclusive of Canadian First Nations, Inuit or Métis or Central/South American indigenous peoples. So we don't necessarily need to rename all "Native American" categories — most of them are already US-specific and parented by a broader continental "Indigenous X of the Americas", and the few that aren't need to be fixed. "Native American" is an entirely acceptable name when the category's scope is US-specific, it's just not appropriate for a category that's meant to include Canadians and Brazilians and Peruvians and Mexicans too. So we need to either rename the category if consensus would prefer keeping everybody all together in one transnational category, or create a transnational parent for it and move the non-USians up to there if consensus would prefer two categories. I'm fine with either solution, just not with leaving Canadians in a category whose name remains "Native American". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I would support one transnational parent with creation of additional categories for specific groups, based on the rationale presented. As the topic expands, it may well be that First Nations fashion designers, Puruhá fashion designers, etc. will be a large enough group to support their own category as well. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Category:Native American people is the country-specific subcat for the ones from the United States specifically, while Category:Indigenous people of the Americas is the transnational parent category for Native Americans and Canadian First Nations/Inuit/Métis and Central and Latin American peoples all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. There's no conflict between that and this; in fact, it bolsters this rather than contradicting it, because it proves that we use the terms the way I described in my nomination statement. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Georgian people

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; suggest keeping name as category redirect. Tim! (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Sterling, Colorado

Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 articles) for a small town >15,000 residents that is unlikely to grow. Also merge into Category:Churches in Logan County, Colorado. TM 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Republicans

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name. This category is intended for people who support the establishment of small-r republican government in a monarchy, but we end up having to constantly monitor it for the incorrect addition of people who really belong in Category:Republicans (United States) -- and as so often happens, the usage note on the page is not actually controlling the problem. So the category should have a disambiguator added to it for extra clarity, but I don't know what the best choice would be. Note: due to the ambiguity, I would request that the old category be retained as a "category disambiguation" page rather than a straight redirect to the new category. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 29 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Rapid transit in Chile

Nominator's rationale: the category refers not only to rapid transit-related pages, but also to commuter rail-related ones. 93.57.250.33 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Political candidate categories

  • Propose deleting:
Category:Alaska gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Illinois gubernatorial candidates - Template:Lc1
Category:Kentucky gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Louisiana gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Maine gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:New Jersey gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:New York (state) gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:North Dakota gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Oklahoma gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Oregon gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Category:Utah gubernatorial candidates‎ - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Per the no consensus decision when I nominated only one of these categories, I clearly erred in doing that. I'm nominating them all now in the hopes of making consensus. All "keep" votes from the last deletion discussion were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Actual rationale from the last discussion stands: These categories are for a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Failed candidates for office are not automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, so therefore these articles aren't notable for being losing candidates, but for other things. I didn't include the other subcats of Category:American political candidates because they do seem to be different, based on list articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep CLCStudent (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but I encourage you to bring up the other candidate categories for deletion instead. American political candidates should be up for deletion as well as candidates by year. Running for a high level political office like Governor of a US state or President are usually defining of an individual's career. However, if you were to bring up the other subcategories, I would support deleting those.--TM 16:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Burials at Old Saint Joseph's Cemetery (Waterbury, Connecticut)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category only has one entry. The cemetery in question doesn't have an article either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6: Difference between revisions Add topic