Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats

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: split (non-admin closure) @Pppery: are you willing to implement the split yourself? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Separate category containing users from category containing project pages to match the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status and Category:Wikipedia user roles. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this with more words? I have read it five times. Is “separate” a verb or an adjective? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"separate" is intended to be a verb. The nomination rephrased: Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats currently contains both user pages and project pages, whereas the rest of the categories in Category:Wikipedia user roles contain only project pages, and this abnormality should be remedied by moving the project pages to a new category named Category:Wikipedia bureaucratship (parented to Category:Wikipedia user roles) while keeping only the user pages in Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats (parented to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status or Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level if the below split passes) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -
    Oculi (talk) 01:57, 4 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:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

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: split and rename. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to the inconclusive discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. Sub-cats that correspond to a page in Category:Wikipedia user access levels should be moved into a new sibling Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. The category as it then remains should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia activity. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. The nominations sounds ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 3 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:Wikipedia user roles

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is the other part of follow up to the inconclusive discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. Apart from Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status which is nominated above this discussion, and which should be removed from this parent, the other sub-cats of this category mainly contain project pages rather than categories of Wikipedians. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. User roles is a subordinate concept to user administration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 3 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:D4 receptor antagonists

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 and redirect (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: same topic. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and keep redirect. These titles are over-short to the point of jargon. These are D4 type dopamine receptor antagonists. The missing word “receptor” throughout the categories I think is a problem, and is prone to confuse readers. The molecules most certainly do not antagonise something called “D4”. However, this is a mainspace titling issue for the parent article
Dopamine receptor antagonist. These subcategories could use category header information to explain. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 3 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:Petromyzontiformes

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:Lampreys. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Taxon with commonly used common name, matching main article Lamprey. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 3 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:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom

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 05:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles listed in this category are also listed in

WP:CATPOV, the right thing to do would be to remove the category from these articles. Once that is done, it would be empty. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The way the parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights as well as the sister category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States are already used/understood, an organisation doesn't need to oppose every single letter in the alphabet specifically to be included; it's sufficient to oppose one of them. Again, this is not my proposal but how this category hierarchy already works. There are a lot of articles in this category on organisations that mostly focus on gay people and that haven't said much about transgender people specifically. If you are opposed to this category, you cannot nominate just one of the country sub categories, but need to nominate the main parent category instead.
I think it is useful to have country categories in addition to the more narrow thematic sub categories since there is a growing number of anti-LGBT groups in the UK specifically. Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a thematic sub category of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights and not a country category, and the two sub categories complement each other.
Note that some of the (around half a dozen) articles included in this category have currently been inappropriately removed based on 
WP:IDONTLIKEIT (any article included in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights
by definition, per how the parent and sister categories are already understood, belongs in the country category), and that the category could reasonably include at least somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen articles if kept.
The claim that the articles in the category "were added to this category by this category's creator" is incorrect and only applies to a single (newly created) article. All the other articles were only added to a country-specific sub category of a category they were already included in (as part of one of its other sub categories). Also, the creator of a country sub category within an existing category hierarchy (that is well-established and almost a decade old) and based on identical sister categories can only be described as a "creator" in a very limited, technical sense.
--Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UK better known for this than even Hungary and Poland? I don't think so. Regarding "an organisation doesn't need to oppose every single letter in the alphabet specifically to be included; it's sufficient to oppose one of them", there is no evidence that this is actual practice, and this is contrary to
WP:CATV. I nominated this because without the bad inclusions it would be speedy-deleted as empty, which is generally considered sneaky. Regarding the claim that you only added this as a country-specific subcategory, no, you added it as brand-new in making the claim about LGBT as a whole. [1][2][3][4] Crossroads -talk- 08:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I didn't. As demonstrated by the diffs you provided there, they were already included in an existing sub category of Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. The inclusion of a country-specific sub category was uncontroversial, regular maintenance of a category hierarchy based on its existing use. There were no bad inclusions anywhere, only attempts to remove categories for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. And yes, I'd say UK-based anti-LGBT groups are far better known internationally, in Europe and the U.S., than any Hungarian organisations in this field. Which is not surprising considering how the UK is sometimes described as "one of the most transphobic countries in the world" (CNN) and also because it's easier for English-language groups to attract international attention than groups that operate in Hungary. The fact that transphobia is rife in the UK and that the UK plays a major role in exporting that kind of ideology is not controversial, it's widely discussed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, see my comment on Talk:LGB Alliance#Category ‘Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom’ for a more thorough discussion of how these categories relate to each other, and also why the creation of this sub category is just routine maintenance within an existing parent category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding CNN's claim in that "analysis" (i.e. opinion) article, that is quite an
WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim when the UK has both legal gender change and a law against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, while numerous countries like Hungary, Poland, Russia, and many more have none of those things. Crossroads -talk- 19:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Re CNN, are their analysis pieces opinion? There seems to be an entirely separate section of their website for explicit opinion pieces. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look into that, but it's still a sloppy and clearly exaggerated claim, of the sort that opinion articles tend to do. Crossroads -talk- 02:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A further sub category on Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom has now been created. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the above, detailed suggestion by Amanda A. Brant. However, I'd suggest we resolve first how exactly "opposition to xyz rights" is defined. E.g. there is an unanswered (since 2016) question to that effect in the relevant US organizations' talk page. I'd urge editors more familiar with the subject to come up with something appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I'm a little concerned that almost immediately after proposing a procedural close, your first action was to remove the category from four articles 1, 2, 3, 4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is per
    WP:ONUS. Whether this category is appropriate on articles that are solely about trans topics and that do not contain any sources verifying they are specifically LGBT is being discussed at what is probably the most viewed such article, Talk:LGB Alliance. Since the category has undisputedly appropriate members now, the issue is no longer deletion but one for an article talk page. This discussion serves no purpose now. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm very concerned as well, Crossroads. When this discussion clearly didn't go your way, you instead removed all the articles in the category, which is clearly disruptive. The articles clearly belong within the geographical part of this category tree one way or the other, as I have explained above. As long as a sub category (of this category) on organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom didn't exist (it does now), this category was the most specific category within the relevant (geographical) part of the tree and they thus all belonged in this category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the above discussion I think the result should be keep. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what to say to this. The only reason I didn't remove them originally is because doing so would have resulted in automatic deletion of the category, which would definitely be bad. When I could remove them from those particular articles - following BRD and ONUS - without secretly killing the category, I did so. With the new Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom, there is both topic and geographic specificity, so this may be a moot issue. Crossroads -talk- 01:47, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_3&oldid=1062922804"