This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Cosmetic change
I've filed an edit request to change the background colour of {{CfD top}} from bff9fc to caf0f2 (or at least something similar). SWinxy asked that I establish consensus or at least notify users here.
bff9fc is a lovely colour, but en masse it is somewhat... gaudy (if not "eye-searing"). Here's how a collapsed discussion currently looks:
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 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.
Here's how it would look with the proposed colour change:
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 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.
Well, if we're on web colours, which I agree would make sense; Lavender , LightCyan and Azure are probably the best options in keeping with a pale-blue theme. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]22:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're only looking at those choices, I think the Azure would be too pale. It needs to show it's closed. And I think the Lavendar seems more violet than blue.
Besides LightCyan I suppose there's also PaleTurquoise , PowderBlue , LightBlue , SkyBlue . The PaleTurquoise seems closest to your second closed example above. Though I'm not sure the small boxes show us clarity/contrast well enough. - jc3700:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that these colours will appear differently depending on the screen/screen type. I have little doubt that the current colours likely look ok on a CRT, but we're now in a world of flat screens, laptops, tablets and phones, among other things. - jc3701:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Lavender – it is slightly purple, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug (though I am certainly biased as it is my second favorite color, after pink. HotPink , anyone?). Azure and LightCyan are a close seconds. All of the choices above are W3C AAA-compliant for black text (including HotPink!). HouseBlastertalk03:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been here for a while. Are there any objections to LightCyan ? It seems like the smallest change while still getting us away from the rather bright current color and addressing the above concerns. It would look like this:
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 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.
I have no problem with the current colour. The first proposal caf0f2 strikes me as a bit grubby, less pleasing on the eye. LightCyan is cleaner than that, on all of my devices, and I could live with it. However, it has this disadvantage: because dark mode has no effect on browser pages (or project/category pages in the Wikipedia app), I occasionally invert the colours on my tablet (triple-click on iPads), and in that presentation LightCyan, Azure and Lavender are almost indistinguishable from white, whereas the current bff9fc and caf0f2 are clearly distinct. – FayenaticLondon14:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, PaleTurquoise is dark enough that it shows up (as lighter) on an inverted-colour iPad. But in normal viewing, I find that blue links stand out less clearly against it than they the do against the current bff9fc. I would therefore prefer to stay put. Of course, if there's a majority in favour of change, I'll live with it; it's not a big deal to me. – FayenaticLondon16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, dark mode. Dark mode will affect the colours of all the XfD boxes, so what I'd suggest, if possible, is to have the colours be hsla (with transparency) rather than RGB so that it just tints the background. Cremastra (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some recent misunderstandings and uncertainties seem to indicate it is not clear under what conditions a closure of category discussions (CfD, CfM, CfR, CfS etc.) may be challenged, and under which criteria admins are allowed to reopen discussions. (See the collapsed section at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries).
The basic problem is that there is no central place where the procedure is written down, and that practice sometimes differs from the things that are written down.
In theory,
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (a section under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE) should apply to all CFDs. But it never mentions categories specifically, and it has a very odd rule, under stipulation no. #3. if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. Which seems to imply that category discussions could be reopened for non-procedural reasons just if some people want to continue discussing the matter after it has already been formally closed. An admin recently seemed to say that fresh arguments would be a good reason to reopen a discussion, something which is not allowed in AFD or RM procedures under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (For my detailed critique of stipulation no. #3., see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Involving countries; no prejudice against any participants in that discussion).
Compare, for example, the standard statement after the closure of every CfD: ... Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)..... Doesn't say anything about the "Working" venue as an appropriate discussion page.
Besides, another regular practice (that I have followed as well) is going to the closing admin's personal talk page to request a reopening if I think there has been a procedural mistake.
Finally, afaik, deletion review is not used very often for categories, nor are category talk pages. Often, people may take a category with a issue to CFD, without necessarily knowing a solution yet - just to draw attention to the issue for CFD regulars to read; because they know it's unlikely that cat talk pages are on watchlists of many people.
So, this standard message suggesting venues for "subsequent comments" (including requesting reopenings) seems to differ very much from actual practice, and isn't very helpful.
(There are other minor issues, but I'll start with this.)
So:
Question 1: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? If not, should stipulation no. #3. be changed, or removed?
Question 2: Should we have a clearer procedures written out for both editors and admins about when, how and where to challenge CFD closures, and to grant requests for reopenings? I'm willing to write a draft text for what that would look like.
In this case it could (hypothetically) lead to requesting relisting at CfD (requests at different places) again and again without offering fundamentally new arguments. But I have not seen an example of this yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, why should "new arguments" be a good reason to request reopening? In AfD, new arguments can only be offered for as long as the discussion is open. Once closed, it's over. It can only be reopened upon request if there has been a procedural mistake. Otherwise, closed discussions could be reopened and closed and reopened endlessly. I see no reason to treat CfD and AfD differently.
Second, who is to decide what is a "fundamentally" new argument, and what is an "almost kinda new-ish but also a bit recycled from what we have already heard three times before" argument? I think this puts admins into a difficult position of having to decide what are and aren't compelling new perspectives. Category:Compelling new perspectives sounds like an WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT to me.[Joke]NLeeuw (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Participation is often much thinner at CFD than at AFD. For several years, CFD was being closed rather slowly, so there was ample time to notice and participate if interested. Recently we have gained more active closers who are generally closing CFDs after 7 days, and I am therefore inclined to reopen given almost any request, so that a point of view may be aired fully in a traceable location. The request may be made on the closer's talk page or any other page. – FayenaticLondon08:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of stipulation #3 above is that if a discussion appears to have been closed prematurely, it should be reopened on request. This is also behind my explanation about participation.
I have seen examples over the last year where CFDs have been closed after 7 days even though there was recent ongoing discussion which had not petered out, so I would have left them open for longer. In other words, premature closure definitely happens.
Another reason that I have been easy about reopening CFDs is that there is often a delay between closing and implementing them. If the request arrives before implementation, then it is easy to reopen them.
As for your questions, then: Q1 – Yes, in the case of closures that have not yet been implemented. Stipulation #3 should be softened in the case of CFD as category nominations gain less attention and therefore less participation. Q2 then becomes unnecessary. Once the decision has been implemented, then it's up to the closer to decide whether to reopen it or point to WP:DRV/WP:MRV. – FayenaticLondon08:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! I do understand that low CFD participation can sometimes make the decision process practically different from AFDs, but I see several concerns as well. I'll re-read and consider everything carefully before I reply, as this is a bit of a complicated issue. Good night for now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category was speedy moved but still has a large amount of red links. This is not a caching issue, since they are sitting there over a week. I made several attempts but I can not figure out where they are coming from. Could somebody help please? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It was some template doing funky stuff it shouldn't do (autogenerating categories). Rather than deal with the underling issue I just used AWB to update the template params. * Pppery *it has begun...16:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not discuss the merits of the many deletions, upmerges, renames, ... of the categories related to these two names, as I fundamentally disagree with the years-long campaign to erase current and common names of places to restrict categories solely to the ultra-precise historical names exclusively, for no benefit to the readers at all (and good luck applying this to e.g. the Thirteen Colonies).
But if this kind of plan gets implemented, can you at least do it in an orderly fashion? On 4 Augustus, categories get changed from Germany to German Confederation[1]. But at the same time, on 3 Augustus, categories for the same periods get upmerged from Bavaria to Germany[2], resulting in the creation today of new such Germany categories([3]), and the nomination for speedy deletion as empty, also today, of the exact same category, but for the German Confederation[4] (which according to the collective wisdom here is the only correct one, while the new one is wrong). Fram (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a complete mess which resulted from several (independent?) CfDs, but at least I now deleted the 1846 category, and whatever was supposed to be there is in the 1846 German Confederation category. There might be other examples, I will take care of them when I check the backlinks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should occupation categories be added to location categories?
Here, here, and here are the main ones. My role is VERY recent, I would add. It only came to my attention a week or so ago by complete chance. I think it should be settled amicably rather than be brought up every few weeks in heated exchanges. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Omnis Scientia! I really really appreciate you taking the lead. My view is similar to Omnis, that I think we should include these categories in the People from Foo. It makes it easier to implement policy for pages. However, as you will have gathered from my conversations with @Alansohn and @Lost in Quebec, others disagree. I'd rather not add much to the conversation because I'd much rather defer to consensus. Mason (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been happy with the idea that alumni and sports team categories should be parented by a location category. This does not mean that every single alumnus/player is otherwise from the place, as WP:SUBCAT allows for some exceptions. At the extreme we have categories such as Manchester United F.C. players where perhaps only a minority were otherwise "from Manchester", but I would allow even that one in Footballers from Manchester because they regularly played at Old Trafford while that was their club. It's clear from the category names that the connection is only partial, but IMHO it's sufficient and useful to put that parenting in place consistently. – FayenaticLondon09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding occupation categories by location only harms navigation. Whether you went to school, college or university in Foo, you worked at a job for a company located in Foo or are buried in Foo, you are not from Foo by any relevant definition. Blending connections based on education, occupation or inhumation into those based on habitation would mean the loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place. Alansohn (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how does parenting the category harm navigation? The "loss of a meaningful and defining distinction based on people being born or residing in that place" seems to be such a narrow definition. Should bishops of FOO be removed from the city they serve? That seems inconsistent with the core feature of defining. Mason (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are conflating categories with individual pages. The category: The New York Times journalists is clearly defined by being journalists for the New York Times. They don't need to be resides of the place. Can you please explain how the CATEGORY is harmed. Mason (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that harm worse than the benefit to category navigation? I would think the benefit of adding the category to the tree makes it so that you can easily remove people who shouldn't be in the Journalists from FOO category. Mason (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one doesn't make sense, because some of these newspapers have remote offices outside of NYC. I don't see how this would be problematic in general, as long as it is accurate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with those who say the journalist situation does not work. One can be a journalist writing for the k Times and never set foot in New York (city or state) in your entire life. Hell, foreign correspondents might never even set foot in the United States. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that people shouldn't be added to the journalists from FOO category if they're never been affiliated. But does the category itself require it? Mason (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can work in one place and live somewhere totally different. In a tightly packed urban area, they do I'd bet large sums of money on. Ever heard of the LIRR? It takes people from NYC out to their Suffolk and Nassau County homes by the thousands every working day. BTW the NP criteria[5] says born, or lived in. Not worked, died, buried. Journalists for the NYT wouldn't qualify for a List of New York City people article just on the basis of where they work. Then why does a NYT journalists category page have 'People from New York City' on it. Doesn't that sound contradictory?Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied here twice. You don't like the answers. Working somewhere or going to college doesn't automatically make the person from there. How many editors do you need to be told that by? Alan Sohn, Johnpacklambert, blueboar, LaundryPizza. Not to mention this[6] which you have been reminded of on multiple occasions.Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Rangasyd consented then you could just move it summarily under WP:G7 or WP:IAR. But listing at CFDS can have the benefit of even better ideas, e.g. as this has only one member it should either be populated more or upmerged. – FayenaticLondon08:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television series by 20th Century Fox Television
Please undo the incorrect speedy and restore all pages to this category. Film and television categories do not get renamed to match current name as that is anachronistic and produces false information. We don't change history. I don't understand why this needs explaining each time. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page says that categories get processed if there are no objections. You often show up a week later and express your frustration. May be instead you should raise your objections within 48h every time. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my timetable isn't working for you. How about I don't need to repeat this same exact statements each time? This type of rename isn't speedy-able. Anyone interested in renaming should take it to a full discussion, advertised and open for at least 7 days. Gonnym (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National artists of Thailand
@Ymblanter, @Hey man im josh, I did not see this or I would have opposed speedy. National Artist is a specific title, while national artist as a common noun doesn't mean anything. I would appreciate this being reverted and listed at full CfD, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012: I'm not opposed to the process being respected and reverted when something is contested this quickly afterwards, but I do have a question for clarification. My understand is the category is based on the page National Artist (Thailand) and the title of "National Artist". With titles we typically apply MOS:JOBTITLES, meaning, when "National Artist" becomes pluralized to "National Artists", it's no longer a title, but instead a common noun and should actually be downcased to national artists. Is "National Artists" an actual title used? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, JOBTITLES only applies when the title is actually a common noun. It shouldn't apply to specific titles such as Boden Professor of Sanskrit (where we have Category:Boden Professors of Sanskrit), because "Boden professor" is meaningless as a common noun. Proper nouns can take plural forms after all. That said, I'm not sure about the Thai National Artist title since it's an award, and in some ways directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural; to compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but Best Actor winners). I'm not sure if this category shouldn't be reworded along the same lines. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do feel the current capitalization is correct, I have no problem with the change being reverted. After all, CFDS is for non-controversial changes. @Ymblanter: Is it normal to just place the category revert on WP:CFDS/Working? Or should it go through WP:CFDS again? Sorry for the delay @Paul 012, I don't typically edit on weekends. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 10 articles about societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong; some of these are overwhelmingly academic, and don't address business or finance topics. I'd put all 10 into this new category and take some out of the business and finance category.
The new category would be in Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to natural peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography.
How to name it? I would like a concise name like "Societies of economists" but the longer name "economics-related professional associations" is sensible too -- it's accurate and would follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts or suggestions? Is a shorter name okay?
Yes, that set of categories was keeping the bot busy. Making use of WP:CFD/W/L for such large batches would avoid this issue since that page gets processed independently. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mohouidae is a monogeneric animal family. We have Category:Mohouidae for the family and Category:Mohoua for the sole genus. We would not have separate articles for the family and the genus, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Monotypic taxa, so I don't know why we have two categories. I can't find guidance specifically for categorising monotypic taxa. Are these candidates for merging, and would it be an up merge to the family or a down merge to the genus (as we do for articles)? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have nothing to say more than in the previous discussion. If anything it is a defining characteristic of the storyline rather than of the character. A category with myths about incest would be fine (if it doesn't already exist). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Apologies, I missed this response. I understand that there are plenty of instances in which incest occurs as part of a myth, and is of no real significance to the mythological figures involved; by the modern notion of incest (which isn't necessarily the same as was that of the ancient Greeks), just about every major deity was incestuous. However, there are a number of cases (eg. Menephron, Byblis, etc.) where every author who mentions the figure mentions them as part of a story where they engage in incest, and where incest is the central theme. In these cases, how could incest not be a defining characteristic of the figure (and not just the individual tales)? In theory a category for "myths about incest" would be fine, but our articles are almost always on mythological figures, not individual myths. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the categories of American people of North Indian and South Indian descent.
Greetings,
I noticed the speedy deletion tag placed on the categories Category:American people of South Indian descent and Category:American people of North Indian descent. I would like to strongly advocate for retaining these categories, as I believe they are important for accurately representing the diversity within the Indian-American community and for enriching the broader Wikipedia platform.
1. Acknowledging Regional Diversity in the Indian Diaspora
India’s diversity is not just limited to language, religion, or cuisine but extends deeply into regional identities. South Indians (e.g., Tamils, Kannadigas, Telugus, and Malayalis) and North Indians (e.g., Punjabis, Gujaratis, and Marathis) have distinct histories, cultural practices, and contributions that persist even in the diaspora. By recognizing these distinctions, these categories allow Wikipedia to represent this diversity more accurately.
For example, South Indian Americans have a particularly strong presence in fields like classical arts (e.g., Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam), software engineering, and medicine. In contrast, North Indian Americans are prominently involved in areas like Bollywood-inspired media, cuisine, and business. These distinct contributions enrich American society in unique ways, and deleting these categories risks flattening these nuanced identities.
2. Enhancing Research and Accessibility
These categories are critical for researchers, students, and curious readers who are trying to better understand the contributions and experiences of regional Indian communities in the U.S. Currently, someone interested in exploring, say, Tamil Americans or Punjabi Americans, would find it easier to access relevant articles through these subcategories. Without them, such granular searches would become unnecessarily complicated.
For instance, Wikipedia often creates subcategories for ethnic groups to improve accessibility, such as Category:American people of Basque descent or Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent. These help users navigate related articles more efficiently while acknowledging the intersection of identities. Applying this same logic to Indian-American subcategories is both fair and consistent with Wikipedia’s categorization practices.
3. Supporting Representation and Identity
Many Indian Americans identify strongly with their regional heritage, even generations after immigration. For example, South Indians might celebrate festivals like Pongal or Onam and maintain linguistic ties to Tamil or Kannada, while North Indians might celebrate Lohri or Diwali and have linguistic ties to Hindi or Punjabi. By categorizing individuals based on these regional backgrounds, Wikipedia validates and reflects these identities, which are an integral part of the diasporic experience.
4. Highlighting Genetic and Anthropological Differences
From an anthropological perspective, South Indians and North Indians also exhibit distinct genetic lineages due to historical migrations and geographical separation. Studies of Indian populations reveal that genetic differences exist, with South Indian populations often linked more closely to Dravidian ancestry, while North Indians show a greater influence from Indo-Aryan migrations and Central Asian lineages
5. Consistency with Wikipedia's Categorization Practices
Wikipedia already recognizes and utilizes subcategories for various ethnic and regional identities. For example:
Category:American people of Irish descentCategory:American people of Scandinavian descentCategory:American people of Flemish descent
These categories highlight the contributions of specific subgroups within larger ethnic or racial identities. The categories for South Indian and North Indian Americans are no different; they are an acknowledgment of distinct cultural groups within the broader Indian-American community. Deleting these would set a precedent for erasing similar distinctions in other ethnic groups, which could diminish Wikipedia’s ability to represent diversity effectively.
6. Capturing the Complexity of Diasporic Identities
The Indian-American community is not a monolithic entity. Its diversity is mirrored in the diaspora, where regional distinctions play a significant role in community organization, cultural events, and professional associations. For instance, South Indian Americans often organize cultural festivals around classical music and dance, while North Indian Americans may focus on Bollywood or Punjabi bhangra events. These categories help capture this complexity, offering a more detailed picture of the diaspora.
7. Avoiding Oversimplification
Without these categories, Indian Americans may be unfairly grouped under broader labels, losing the rich regional specificity that defines their experiences. Simplifying such identities undermines the depth and richness of the Indian-American story, making Wikipedia less inclusive and less representative of the nuanced reality of this group. SavetheSouthofIndia (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are currently empty, and we can not retain them if they remain empty. If you or someone else would populate the categories, it would be a different story. Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the parent categories are ok. But then coming back to Fiction set on Fooland and Works set on Fooland, actually, both theoretically are valid (fiction being a subset of Works), but presumably vast majority of works in question here are 'fiction', not 'works', since no human has yet went beyond Moon. Nonetheless a work depicting life of real astronauts on the Moon would be in 'works' but not 'fiction' (and most works now and in the near future would be under fiction...).
Given that, I've started CfDs for mergers of the Mars/Moon fiction/works, but already withdrawn the Moon one. I've also made Fiction set on Fooplanet a subcat to Works set on Fooplanet, as all Fiction is Works but not vice versa (works consists of fiction and non-fiction). If anyone can add examples of non-fiction to relevant categories (Works) it would be helpful in showing they can be saved (I am sure there is non-fiction about Moon astronauts, not sure what can be found about Mars - something about robotic exploration?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked recently into the specific cats you note above, but thought that I'd merely note that many many category trees were "fiction/fictional" before everyone settled on having prepending "Works". So there are likely more than a few legacy trees/categorizations that need to be re-aligned, which may not have been yet. - jc3715:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With few exceptions, most fiction isn't about the place it is set in. I'm honestly not a big fan of the "Fiction about" category tree when it involves place because these cats are in most cases confusing topic with setting. As a result, often works get sorted into these categories which don't belong there. Is a science fiction novel such as the Mars trilogy or The Martian Chronicles "about Mars"? No. They are set there, but they aren't principally about the planet. They are about the central characters in that story, and the narrative arc of the plot (none of which is centrally about Mars). More broadly, the authors are using the characters in that setting to explore themes about humanity/society, the nature of truth, and various moral and ethical issues as it relates to the consequences of science and technology. These novels are about that, not the planet. The authors could have theoretically set the same stories on Venus or Uranus or any other planet other than Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference to the overall tale and its themes and central message. In contrast a non-fiction book about the real planet of Mars is truly about Mars. I'd like to see all of the "Fiction about place" cats deprecated and switched over to Works by setting category system. Obviously non-place topics like "Fiction about friendship" or something like that is ok; although in general the "Fiction about foo" category tree is highly subjective and prone to fan-cruft over categorization. I've seen people do things like take a James Bond movie with a five minute skiing chase scene and sort that movie into a "Films about skiing" category for example, or a 3 hour long film with a five minute flash back scene to American Civil War, sort it into a Films about the American Civil War (even if it's not about that overall). I find the whole Fiction about category tree annoying for this reason. At least the Works by setting category tree is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, if only to say that - while it may be about other things as well - the Martian Chronicles is assuredly about Mars. - jc3719:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this just illuminates the subjectivity of the topical category tree where some editors will perceive a place as a central topic and others won't. This is why I prefer the setting categories. They are less subjective.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I get your point, but setting can be ambiguous too - some works have multiple settings. How many pages or % of the text needs to take place in a given setting to warrant a category? I mean, it's all fuzzy. I just looked at one of my fav shows, Babylon 5, which has Category:Fiction set around Epsilon Eridani - technically correct, but the location is pretty inconsequential to the show (maybe ~3 or so eps out of ~120 concern that planet, and it could be any other random planet). I did remove 'fiction about wormholes' from it (this is not very relevant to the show, unlike DS9). Left 'Television series about extraterrestrial life' and 'Fictional space stations' because that's more central. Maybe we need a category for works set on fictional space stations... shrug. Anyway, going back to 'about Mars', we have to consider that A), non-fiction works about Mars certainly are 'about' and not 'set on' and B) A notable work of fiction that could be said to be "about Mars" but not "set on Mars" is "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells. While the novel deals extensively with Martians and their invasion of Earth, the events take place entirely on Earth, not on Mars. The story explores themes of extraterrestrial life, imperialism, and human survival, making it deeply tied to the concept of Mars as a symbol of the alien and the other, even though it does not use Mars as its setting. Similarly, Ray Bradbury’s "The Martian Chronicles" might also fit this description, as much of the book is about humanity’s perception of Mars, their colonization of the planet, and their projections of hopes, fears, and failures onto it. While some stories in the collection are set on Mars, others take place on Earth, exploring Mars as a concept rather than a physical location. (Disclaimer: B was written by ChatGPT, answering a question 'which work of fiction could be said to be 'about Mars' but would not be 'set on Mars'?' but I think the AI makes a valid point; for another example that makes sense it gave Stranger in a Strange Land - "The novel reflects on Mars through the lens of cultural and philosophical differences, rather than a literal exploration of the planet." which I find a fair argument as well). So I remain of the opinion that both 'about' and 'set on' trees can and should coexist, even if some boundaries will be blurry, and some overlap will occur. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. Issues with setting cats can arise as well (particularly when a setting only occurs in a fleeting portion of a work). I will point out though that setting is never inconsequential in fiction as it is one of the seven defining features of all fiction (see https://prowritingaid.com/elements-of-fiction) as taught in literature courses in universities and public schools everywhere. I can agree with your analysis on those works on the Mars cats. It may be that the current category structure should mainly be left alone, but with some individual pages sorted more appropriately as needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I lean to that conclusion as well. At first I thought we have some pointless redundancy in need of merging, but now I think the system is fine, other then missing some connecting categories which can lead to some confusion (the initial reason I made this post and delved into this is that I am creating some similar cats on pl wiki and was confused that Category:Works set on Mars was on en wiki but Category:Works set on Venus wasn't, and when a colleague connected the latter to Category:Fiction set on Venus my initial thought was "seems identical, we need mergers/renames" (then I changed my mind after rethinking this, per explanation above). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: nom said in the last paragraph that they were withdrawing the proposal. But if they and/or other editors would like to pursue this CfD discussion I will of course happily reopen/relist the discussion. Just let me know if this is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 See my explanation at CfD. TL;DR After rethinking this, I came to the conclusion that both works and fiction categories are fine, with works being a parent for fiction and non-fiction. It is just much more common to find fiction about some outer space location than non-fiction, so some of the works article will be just holding a fiction subcategory (note: this is for 'set on', not 'about'; as in, we can find plenty of works about Venus, and some fiction set on Venus, but unlikely to find notable works about non-fiction set on Venus - i.e. exploration of Venus; and more so about less famous locations like Jupiter or Neptune, some of which have been barely explored at all...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Persisting systemic issues in murder related categories or cats on murder pages
Not sure what the solution to this problem is, but the murder categories consistently have errors in the way articles are sorted. I started going through Category:1997 murders in the United States and fixing issues and stopped after multiple issues kept cropping up. In just spot checking other murder cats, these issues are systemic across the category tree. Some repeating issues:
1. Serial killer/murderer biography pages are placed in murder category pages meant for articles about the event of a murder. For example killer Marvin Gabrion has Category:1997 murders in the United States as a category. I don't think that is a correct way to use this cat which should contain only event pages. A person is not an event.
2. Murder victim biography pages are placed in cats targeted at events. Often this reflects a titling error of the page itself per policy at WP:VICTIM/ Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) where article titles should be focused on the event and not be named for the person. Obviously people known for something other than their murder wouldn't fall under that policy but the question is how to we categorize say Murder of Sheila Bellush (an event page) versus Louis A. McCall Sr. (a victim who was notable for something other than her murder). Do we treat bio pages the same as event pages when it comes to cats?
3.Murder cats often include pages that legally are not murders. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) has a clear flow chart. Our cats should probably mirror this but they don't. As a result, killings/homicides without convictions often get put in murder cats which is a no no under the flow chart. Technically its not a murder until a conviction in a court of law is made ruling it a murder. There are many murder cats full of unsolved homicides or untried killings erroneously labeled murders because they never went to court. This is a consistent problem, and I'm not really sure how to prevent/police this issue effectively.
These may not be the only issues in this area. But they are the ones I kept finding. In general wikipedia does a poor job at monitoring category and titling practices in this content area, and doesn't enforce WP:VICTIM and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) as consistently as it could. It would be helpful if we set up our category tree to help support/encourage those policies.4meter4 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I would recommend having this conversation at the relevant Wikiproject, which is OK amounts of active WP:CRIMEPROJ since you will get more voices chiming in. But while we're here,
Despite constant arguing about it, WP:DEATHS is not a guideline or policy, and all attempts to make it so have failed. It has no backbone and is loosely supported as a best practice sort of thing. So to make our categories reflect it would be not supported - it is also literally impossible, because murder, homicide, killing, all have different definitions in every jurisdiction. What kind of murder? We do not need this needless granularity, even our legal categories for the actual legal stage of the process has this issue where it is actually kind of inaccurate because it can't account for the differences in every single country's legal system. Any attempt to fix this would become wildly complicated to a degree that would violate one of our other category guidelines
With the event/person category thing, it is unavoidable to some degree. The events are clearly part of the biography, so I don't see any problem with including it in the categories. It would be far more confusing to not have them - as long as the events are clearly addressed in the article I see no problem with tagging it so. With the victims it is the same way, This has always been a problem, since the topics are so overlapping and we have a very onerous notability scheme on how to cover it. But as someone who has been editing in this field for a while I do not believe it to be a solvable solution and that any proposed one will likely make things worse. If there's a clear perp/victim/event category delineation I often move the relevant categories to the redirects that they apply to. I sympathize with your annoyance with the issue though.. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some of these issues, moving the categories to the relevant redirect solves the issue (like birthdays defining personal details that kind of thing, or criminal things). Otherwise it gets finicky. I would advise this be done instead of removing the categories wholesale as they are useful for navigation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside input is preferable in this case. I'm not impressed with the editors in that project, as they tend to systemically ignore policies as part of routine behavior and have a poor track record at consistently implementing article structures. It's created a horrible mess encyclopedia wide of inconsistent implementation of article categorization and article titling often not compliant with WP:VICTIM. I do think the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy, and are better equipped to handle this. There's some basic consistent problems in Wikipedia:Defining in this area. And that is a CFD issue not a WikiProject issue.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whenever I have tried to ask, I find I get no response, and when it comes to murder categories I have quite recently found the idea that "the regular CFD participants are scrupulous in enforcing category policy" to not be the case (or, well, they mostly just don't contribute). So best of luck in finding outside opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible; if you give me a list of categories to tag I can do that. You can also use massXFD to do it yourself, if you wish. (I am also happy to do it on your behalf :D) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Thanks. If you don't mind using the tool, I'll indeed list the entries here (and I'll try to use the tool first for some smaller noms). Is it enough for me to give you a list of subcategories, or would you like the new names as well? I.e.
Piotrus The only other exception I can see is "Fiction about World War I". "British Empire war fiction" and "People's Republic of China war fiction" are not about individual wars. TSventon (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
