Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 26

 &lt; February 25 February 27 &gt;

Category:Habsburg period in the history of Slovakia

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Habsburg period in the history of Slovakia to Category:Slovakia under Habsburg rule
 * Nominator's rationale: Match majority in this subcategory: Category:Croatia under Habsburg rule, Category:Czech lands under Habsburg rule, Category:Hungary under Habsburg rule, Category:Serbia under Habsburg rule.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, may be regarded as a case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @ this could also be the general solution to our Roman problem, already in place here.
 * Which Roman problem… buildings, philosophers or both? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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:Women rulers

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Women rulers to Category:Female political office-holders
 * Nominator's rationale: The noun "women" should be corrected to the adjective "female"; the term "ruler" is too ambiguous (see also the ongoing Rulers CfD), and should describe what these women are/were doing, namely, holding a political office. There is already a Category:Lists of female office-holders (which includes non-political positions), and it follows the logic of the established parent categories, applies the adjective "female" rather than the noun "women", and is broad enough to encompass non-hereditary positions. In addition, the List of female hereditary rulers (which is already in the Category:Lists of female office-holders) is currently presented as the "main article" for this category, but I suppose that the List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government (which is already in the Category:Lists of women politicians, a subcat of both Category:Lists of female office-holders and Category:Lists of political office-holders) could aspire to the same status of "main article" for this category, because it concerns female heads of state, and heads of government, which includes elected and appointed women. In short, "Women rulers" is just an odd name and ambiguous grouping, whereas "Female political office-holders" is the logical option based on which people this category is meant to group, and to function in accordance with existing categories and lists. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Category:Female is under Category:Biological classification under Category:Biology. Category:Women is under Category:People. Since these are people, they are "Women". The words are not interchangable, in life or in categories. Also oppose "political office-holders" as almost none of them qualify.
 * Then what do you think of the existing category Category:Lists of female office-holders? It is a child of Category:Lists of women. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw Category:Women is a grandchild of Category:Female through Category:Female mammals, so all women are female (thought that was obvious?). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This should follow the outcome of the discussion about Category:Rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per William above. Am open to alternatives to "rulers" but am not convinced at this time that anything is broken. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what do you think of the existing Category:Lists of female office-holders? It is a child of Category:Lists of women. (same question to William) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Many rulers are not merely "office-holders". Category:Female rulers is a possibility, for example Margaret, Maid of Norway was queen of Scotland, but died aged 7.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Margaret, Maid of Norway is a perfect example of Category:Medieval child monarchs (which was renamed yesterday from Category:Medieval child rulers, see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 18). Category:Medieval child monarchs is a grandchild of Category:Monarchs, which is a child of Category:Heads of state, which is a child of Category:Political office-holders by role. So, Margaret, Maid of Norway was a political office-holder, namely a medieval child monarch with the role of head of state. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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:Climbing magazines

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Climbing magazines to Category:Climbing and mountaineering magazines and journals
 * Nominator's rationale: This was recently merged with Category:Mountaineering magazines (which I earlier requested), but I was away before the discussion closed, and my request to also rename it properly was not done. This category contains both magazines (i.e. available for purchase in shops) and journals (i.e. only available via subscription and with all the editorial boards of journals and volumes and issues etc.).  So it should be renamed to "magazines and journals".  In addition, as per Category:Climbing and mountaineering equipment companies and per Category:Climbing and mountaineering-related lists, it should also say "Climbing and mountaineering" (as some are more focused on one over the other and a reader might expect to see the search term when looking for it). Thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: the merger discussion was at Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11. The renaming part was overlooked, partly because another editor suggested "…magazines and journals" which was rejected. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — your request was rejected after discussion. All mountaineering is climbing. Categories are not for fine distinctions of advertising and distribution targets. Also, we were unable to identify any Category:Academic journals in this category. Alpine Journal is the oldest mountaineering journal in the world. Yet it also uses the word "magazine" for itself, so there's no need to mention journals until we have a more robust evidence of academic journals. There is no existing union tree of "journals and magazines" (per ). There is only Category:Entomology journals and magazines, a science category.
 * Aszx5000 is now replacing "magazine" with "journal" in articles.
 * The American Alpine Journal is not a magazine, it is a journal. The Alpine Journal describes itself as a journal per here and not a magazine.  The problem is that editors with no mountaineering or climbing experience or knowledge are making statements that would not make sense to people in the sport.  Mountaineering is related to climbing (obviously) but is a distinct element.  Previous editors understood this, and hence why we have the categories I outlined above.  The current status for this category would not make sense to someone with knowledge of the sports and who was looking up something? The objective is to make these names more helpful, and not confusing (or just wrong). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Magazine: Non-peer-reviewed academic or professional publications are generally professional magazines. That a publication calls itself a journal does not make it a journal in the technical sense; The Wall Street Journal is actually a newspaper.
 * Alpine Journal is a magazine.
 * American Alpine Journal is a magazine.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From a simple search: What's a journal? A journal is a scholarly publication containing articles written by researchers, professors and other experts. Journals focus on a specific discipline or field of study. Unlike newspapers and magazines, journals are intended for an academic or technical audience, not general readers. Alpine Journal and the American Alpine Journal both meet this test, written by experts, for experts. Journals are not restricted to academics. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you can't buy these journals like a newspaper or magazine like the WSJ. They are not sold on shop shelves.  You have to subscribe to them, like any journal, as they audience is other experts. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are describing a Trade magazine. Also, wikipedia itself disagrees with you. Please cite WP:RS, not random search results.
 * There is no "trade" going on here in these journals, and no discussion of the business of the sports (although there are other publications for mountain equipment manufacturing companies). I am only trying to help a reader in this topic who is looking for these journals to find them.  Nobody in the topic area would consider these are being "magazines" (the publications included).  The example I provided is from the University of Manitoba Libraries which I think is an RS (especially in the area of cataloging publications), and they do support the fact that these are journals. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per established convention, we have separate trees for magazines on the one hand and for academic journals on the other hand, and the category does not contain academic journals. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, journals are not just academic, they are however written by experts for experts, which is what some of these publications are (and they assert that themselves). Aszx5000 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are describing a Trade magazine. Also, wikipedia itself disagrees with you. Please cite WP:RS, not random search results.
 * Per my comment above. Sorry, to labour this, and I understand these are not "academic journals", but am trying to make this into something useful to readers who would know the topic area and am overhauling some of the articles.  Aszx5000 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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:Habsburg monarchy by location

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Habsburg monarchy by location to Category:Habsburg monarchy
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as nominated.
 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The present cat is a useless container. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.

Template:Cultural-Heritage-stub

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Template:Cultural-Heritage-stub to Template:Serbia-cultural-heritage-stub
 * Propose renaming Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia stubs to Category:Cultural heritage of Serbia stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: The template is specific to Cultural heritage of Serbia, so the current name is ambiguous, and might be used inadvertently on a heritage item of another country. For the same reason I suggest editing all the transclusions and not leaving a redirect.
 * As for the category, the parent was renamed to Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 8, but the article was renamed to lowercase in good faith last year, and the parent was just renamed again to Category:Cultural heritage of Serbia. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 23. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, this way it will obviously become less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support


 * 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.

Pennsylvania Dutch

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania German culture to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch culture
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania German culture in Maryland to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch culture in Maryland
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania German culture in Ohio to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch culture in Ohio
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania German culture in Virginia to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch culture in Virginia
 * Nominator's rationale The main articles, such as Pennsylvania Dutch and Pennsylvania Dutch language and many of the related categories, refer to this ethnic group as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" rather than as "Pennsylvania Germans". The categories should be uniform. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:GREATWRONGS, common language is historically wrong, Wikipedia should be equally wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:C2D. We should take the article naming seriously, even when I have misgivings. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support WP:C2D


 * 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.

Polysexuality

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Polysexual people
 * Propose deleting Category:Fictional polysexuals
 * Nominator's rationale There is a common understanding that "bi" is an umbrella term that refers to any person who is "attracted to more than one gender". This is the definition employed by the Human Rights Campaign, the Trevor Project, GLAAD and other major LGBT organizations, as well as leading bi academics such as Robyn Ochs. Under this definition, all varieties of "polysexuality" would fall under the bi umbrella. If these categories are deleted, the categories for pansexuality and pansexual people can be subcats of the bi categories. There is no article for polysexuality. At first glance, I assumed it was a reference to polyamory. Pinging: @User:Bearcat, @User:Another Believer, @User:TheTranarchist, @User:Mathglot, @User:Pyxis Solitary, @User:Marcocapelle, @User:Fayenatic london, @User:StarTrekker, @User:Place Clichy, @User:Anomalous+0, @User:Knoterification, @User:JDBauby, @User:discospinster Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently one article about someone being polysexual and another one trisexual. Both articles are sufficiently categorized otherwise in the LGBT tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Selective merge from Category:Fictional polysexuals to Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation, in order not to orphan the sub-cats. The articles are already categorised as bisexual. (I have just moved Fujiko Mine to a subcat, and Carmen Sandiego (character) was removed by another editor since her sexuality is not mentioned in the article.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment while we are at this discussion, can we also talk about Category:Fictional gynosexuals and Category:Fictional androsexuals? I was about to create Category:Androsexual people and Category:Gynosexual people (or Category:Gynesexual people?) for grouping Category:Gay men & Category:Bisexual men/Category:Pansexual men and Category:Lesbians & Category:Bisexual women/Category:Pansexual women but I was in question if they should be named as Category:Androphiles and Category:Gynephiles. Xdtp (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the bisexual umbrella isn't a consensus, some use plurisexual and multisexual. Not even anti-pan bisexual activists agree with bisexual being an umbrella. Xdtp (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But so what? We don't need to create 5,000 obscure categories for every micro- and nano-identity. Otherwise, we'd need to create entire categories for Category:Plurisexual people and Category:Multisexual people and maybe Category:Octosexual people for all we know. We don't need that. It adds nothing to Wikipedia. I even saw an article for somebody calling themselves "trisexual", but that doesn't justify a Category:Trisexual people category. Bi as an umbrella is the best way to deal with this. Category:Pansexual people seems justified as a subcategory of Category:Bisexual people, given the common use of the term. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer we didn't use this sort of antiquated, medical-sounding language. We already have categories for Category:Fictional LGBT men and Category:Fictional LGBT women, and categories for Category:LGBT men and Category:LGBT women in general. These proposed categories would theoretically include heterosexuals as well. I think it's a bad category naming pattern. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tdmurlock (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Minimal categorisation is best: 1, 2, many. Since there cannot be more than two sexes, than bi covers all situations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Delete WP:SMALLCAT, no WP:RS. Perhaps we'll just add "fictional". (See The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin was ahead of her time, and sorely missed.)


 * 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:Subdivisions of Denmark

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  17:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Denmark to Category:Administrative divisions of Denmark
 * Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of the Faroe Islands to Category:Administrative divisions of the Faroe Islands
 * Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Greenland to Category:Administrative divisions of Greenland
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Administrative divisions by country.
 * WP:C2D Main article Administrative divisions of Denmark currently is a redirect to Denmark.
 * WP:C2D Main article Administrative divisions of the Faroe Islands currently is a redirect to Faroe Islands
 * WP:C2D Main article Administrative divisions of Greenland moved in 2006.


 * Precedent:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19 result renamed
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6 result renamed


 * Oppose speedy for above three. uses the "Subdivisions of FOO" format in all of its subcategories. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These do however follow from the cfd 2021_January_19#Category:Country_subdivisions, usually regarded as justification for speedly renaming all subcats. Oculi (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO that CFD would only be relevant if these categories used "Country_subdivisions", but they don't. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support to match main articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.