Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22[edit]

Category:Provincial governors of the Philippines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Category:Provincial governors of the Philippines

Category:Female candidates for President of the United States[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. There was likewise no consensus at Talk:African-American_candidates_for_President_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_10_January_2022 to rename related articles. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While it could arguably be permissible under MOS:JOBTITLES (not modified, not plural, etc.), WP:CATNAME requires regular nouns to be lowercase most of the time. It seems to me that president qualifies as a regular noun. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Obviously this is a long list and mistakes can happen. So please feel free to suggest any categories I might've missed or point out any errors I've made.--Woko Sapien (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I understand your argument, but these still look like they act as official titles - "president" may be a regular noun, but "President of Foo" is a title and a proper noun phrase. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: I think a case could be made that either way is acceptable within Wikipedia's formatting guidelines. However, I would point out that MOS:JOBTITLES distinguishes between titles (can be capitalized) and offices (should usually be lowercase). Candidates don't run for titles, they run for offices. Therefore, while it isn't modified or plural (as I've said in my rationale), I'd contend that these categories are implicitly referring to the office of president of Foo, not the title of President of Foo.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. It's a tricky one. It could definitely be seen either way. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between an office and a title isn't very clear at all. It would make more sense if WP:MOS made one uniform choice for both. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely murky to say the least. But my imperfect rule of thumb is to think of titles as adjectives and offices as nouns. For instance, Bill Clinton was President of the United States; he was impeached during his presidency. This can be restructured as President Bill Clinton [of the United States] was impeached during his presidency. This follows the same logic as the dog is brown and his name is Fido or the brown dog is named Fido. But here, that doesn't quite work because Candidates for President of Foo cannot be restructured as President candidates of Foo.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead, you have to change the noun into an adjective (Presidential candidates of Foo). Hence these categories refer to the office of president, not the title of President.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except, given it's a noun phrase, you'd be talking about "President of Foo candidates"... which doesn't seem to have an adjectival form. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose so. Either way, I still maintain that candidates patently run for offices, not for titles. And lowercase is in keeping with the spirit of the style manual. But yeah, it's a gray area for sure.Woko Sapien (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: I've started another discussion for the articles that have similar names to these categories here --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to lowercase Keep them uppercase
Rreagan007 力
Yaksar Aervanath
Amakuru
This is where editors stand so far on the discussion for similarly named articles.--Woko Sapien (talk) 20:24, 17 January 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 detained in hospitals in the United Kingdom[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: withdrawn. ✗plicit 01:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of Category:People detained in psychiatric hospitals. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment (vote above) -- Any person who is "sectioned" as being a "danger to him/herself or others" will be detained in a psychiatric hospital or a psychiatric ward in a general hospital, but such detention is NN and something we would not normally categorise. This category is intended a particular class of people who commit would would normally be serious crimes, but due to their mental state lack the necessary mens rea. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron, as a valid sub-cat of the other parents Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom and Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom. Populate with a sub-cat for Rampton as he also suggests. State Hospital only appears to have one inmate with an article so I have added that bio directly into the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 16:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as I notice the category has meanwhile been populated slightly better. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 5 March 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:History of psychiatry[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. – Fayenatic London 16:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redirect and purge, the category mostly consists of biographies of psychiatrists and psychotherapists that do not belong in a history category. When discounting the biographies, the type of content in this category is very similar as in its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support that. The biographies will need to be removed manually by moving them to a more appropriate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom. The topics are nigh synonymous anyway. - Xurizuri (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While all history of psychiatry is history of mental health, the opposite is not true. I am not personally opposed to psychiatry and consider outright rejection of the field (as opposed to mere criticism of some of the practices/trends within it) to be woo, but ultimately the amount of "dissenters" is too notable to fully sideline. --181.115.61.74 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Psychiatry is not synonymous with the much broader category of mental health. Psychiatry refers to a specific medical specialism with its own history of professionalisation, practice and knowledge production. To be honest, I'm not sure what the history of mental health is - it's a much newer term. The history of mental illness would perhaps be easier to define but it would not be the same as the history of psychiatry, despite the obvious overlap. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly disagree with the point but I do note that your critique is more with the vague naming of the target, rather than with the merge itself. Even without the biographies, the articles in the category are entirely within mental health, and the assignment to this child is highly arbitrary. I do also question how many of them are "history of" but that's yet another issue. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would a reverse merge and purge of biographies make more sense, per FiachraByrne's reasoning? bibliomaniac15 03:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Psychiatry is what FiachraByrne says - a medical specialisation, I fail to see any direct correlation to the very generic term 'mental health' - Marcocapelle's comments are helpful...JarrahTree 07:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - one is broader than the other. I can imagine historical psychiatrist bios that would fit former but not latter as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 26 January 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:Grand strategy wargames[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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, not a sufficiently differentiating characteristic, most war games - except video games - will satisfy the definition of a grand strategy war game. Note that the category description is much more restrictive than the article (as it excludes abstract war games), but that should probably not be the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Many wargames are not grand strategy. For instance Category:Tactical wargames are by definition not grand strategy. Nor are Mage Wars Arena or Kriegsspiel present in Category:Wargames. Grand strategy is distinctly different from lower level tactics. Dividing wargames by being tactical or strategic is a defining characteristic.--Mvqr (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. this is a totally valid classification for these games. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 18:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose there are also several grand strategy games that would not qualify as war games. No. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:11, 9 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_22&oldid=1076035335"