Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bibliomaniac15 (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 2 December 2024 (→Category:Novels about adultery: Relisted on 2024 December 2 (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 23
November 25 >

November 24

Category:Single seat helicopters

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize aircraft by their number of seats. Arguably non-defining; if you take out additional seats for various reasons (adding equipment, long-range fuel tanks, etc.) does the helicopter count as a single-seater? The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is some truth to that for sure, even if most aircraft do get rated for a certain number of passengers. For FAA Ultra-light helicopters they are only allowed to carry one passenger, so we just follow the sources we don't have to make a determination or expand this to other light aircraft that have more flexibility. A75 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Helicopters are categorized this way, the FAA standard for ultra-light helicopters have to be one seat. If you see this list List of ultralight helicopters. I did not choose describe them as FAA Ultralight helicopters, because single seat helicopters have existed before this FAA regulation though they are popular now. In addition, the recent development evtols such as the Jetson One are also categorized this way, and are still baiscally helicopters even if they take a different technical approach. A75 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, don't take my word for it. If you see Ultralight aircraft (United States), you can see that having a single-seat is important part of this standard. Thank you A75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, it is common for fighter aircraft, to be categorized as single seat or two seat fighter aircraft, just to round out this discussion. A75 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters and aircraft are categorized this way by the FAA, yes. Wikipedia's categorization scheme does not categorize aircraft by number of seats, nor should we, as it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the aircrat, especially to an outside observer. Also an "ultralight helicopter" may well be required to be a single-seat helicopter, but "single-seat helicopter" =/= "ultralight helicopter" as ultralight aircraft is a very specific classification by the FAA. Category:Ultralight helicopters would be a valid categorization alongside Category:Ultralight aircraft. Category:Single seat helicopters is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one seat is definitely a defining trait, and many single seat helicopters are noted as such. This is similar to fighter aircraft, and of course passenger airliners often mention passenger capacity. I don't have an opinion on starting another category for ultra-light helicopters right now, though we can agree that not all single-seat helicopters may be ultra-lights. A75 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not it is consisdered WP:DEFINING, it doesn't change the fact that we don't categorise aircraft by number of seats. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious organizations by year

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories, other year categories only start after 1500. Note with respect to the 2nd merge target that it is merely coincidental that all articles are about organizations in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I've removed Kleinlützel Priory and Salem Abbey from the category, since their bodies didn't support placing them in the year 1136 specifically. I then populated it from Category:Religious organizations established in the 1130s, for the sake of completeness, but it still only has six articles. I don't think that's enough of a reason to have an unusually deep category intersection, especially since it seems that many religious organizations established in this time are only known to a year range, not the specific year. I did a Special:PrefixIndex search, and the only other year categories before 1500 are Religious organizations established in 1200 and Religious organizations established in 1375 (with one and two members respectively). Also, since I added articles to the category, I should mention that it's still true that all articles are about organizations in Europe – i.e., the second merge target is still valid. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I've added Religious organizations established in 1200 and Religious organizations established in 1375 to this nomination. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Nominator's rationale: Was split into First presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Second presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Lazesusdasiru (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about adultery

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 2#Category:Novels about adultery

Religious organizations by decade

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated 1-article categories. The articles are already in an establishments by year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates in the 1941 New Zealand general election

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was no New Zealand general election in 1941 due to World War II. After 1938, the next election was in 1943. It seems unnecessary to categorise candidates for an election that did not occur. 1857a (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2024 (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:Cape Town City F.C. (NFL) players

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:Cape Town City F.C. (1960) players. The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Cape Town City F.C. (1960). C2D does not apply because it was moved without discussion. The new name has WP:CONSISTENT disambiguation with Cape Town City F.C. (2016), so I think it was a good move. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 24 November 2024 (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:FK Rabotnički players

Nominator's rationale: Per FK Rabotnichki. C2D does not apply because was recently moved without discussion (for what appears to be a valid reason). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional works

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:Creative works in fiction. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like Category:Creative works, this needs specification that it involves in-universe creative works rather than just containing works of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (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:Tesla, Inc. vehicles

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:Tesla vehicles. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles needs discussion. Is the ", Inc." necessary to disambiguate? All Tesla vehicles, it would seem from looking through Wikipedia articles, are vehicles from "Tesla, Inc.", yet those vehicle article names do not include the "Inc." bit in any of there names. Seems that Category:Tesla vehicles should be sufficient. I would propose that simplification. N2e (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag your nomination.SMasonGarrison 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (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:UKS SMS Łódź players

Nominator's rationale: UKS SMS Łódź is a multi-sport club with football, volleyball and other sections. Propose renaming from "players" to "footballers" to avoid ambiguity and potential confusion. - Darwinek (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on GiantSnowman's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per GiantSnowman. Differing from GiantSnowman's example (and many I can think of), the corresponding main article is about both the men's and the women's football teams, but that shouldn't affect the point of this discussion. Also, looking at the club's website, it seems that (much like in the case of FC Barcelona and many similar cases) football is the primary sport of this club (I'm not sure whether the men's or women's team is the "main" one, but again, that doesn't really matter for this discussion), so the article being about the football section seems appropriate as well.
    (Side note: There is an issue with this cat in that it includes both men's and women's players but is only in Category:Men's footballers in Poland by club, but I'm not sure how to resolve that (since the main article is about both teams, I'm not sure which should go in a subcat, and I don't see a case where a players category is in both Category:Men's footballers in Poland by club and Category:Women's footballers in Poland by club).) Felida97 (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coffee Talk

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 to Category:Visual novels. The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Coffee Talk" series currently only has two games, that is not enough for a category under our standards. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2024 (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:Endangered species by reason they are threatened

Nominator's rationale: This category has long been used for both extinction-threatened species and extinct species. Separating out extinct species is impractical for reasons detailed on the cat page, and would result in a lot of duplication. Extinct species aren't really threatened in the present tense and "endangered species" is also a counterintuitive way to describe them. Alternate name suggestions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete all corresponding subcategories similarly created by HLHJ. This category grouping appears to force one or more clear reasons why a species is endangered when it is usually a combination of numerous factors. For example, climate change global warming endangers a huge amount of species simply by existing and causing changes to the biosphere, but according to this categorization scheme, it only endangers a small portion of them. The amount of misinformation being given to the reader makes this tree of categories untenable, even if it was intended in good faith. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If species were restricted to being in one subcategory, then this would be indeed be misleading. But if species can be placed in multiple subcategories this need not be the case, and if, as suggested below, data is taken from IUCN listings, incompleteness need not be a serious issue. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with subcategories, Zxcvbnm makes an excellent point. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I noticed only one main idea was stated, one by zxcvbnm. I have relisted this to see if there are any additional comments that propose/support this idea as I only saw one other supporter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deleting as incomplete. Most of our categories are incomplete. Donald Trump is in Category:Illeists, and Xenophon isn't. Xenophon made really extensive and notable use of illeism, and assuming the contrary, just because he's not in that category, is clearly wrong. The lack of categorization at "Xenophon" is not misinformation.
    The categories are not exclusive; multiple categories can be added, and anyone may cat any species endangered by climate change (according to reliable sources) but not categorized as such. Exhaustive categorization is impossible. New threats to a species can occur at any time, and minor threats may be unclear, and even major threats may be completely unknown to humans. The presence of a category says that we know X threatens this species; the absence does not say that we know X is no threat to this species. If you wanted that, you'd need a "Species endangered, but not by climate change" cat, or similar.
    Without wishing to trivialize climate change, it is unfortunately only one of the major causes of the biodiversity crisis. There are also many species which are under threat from other causes, such as Category:Species endangered by invasive species. Habitat loss to agriculture and expanding human population is also an issue, as are other forms of pollution. And some reasons really ought to be listed in an encyclopedia that makes knowledge widely available, because they are caused by ignorance, like Category:Species endangered by the pet trade. Which reasons are most important varies (for instance, climate change and trawling are major threats to corals, and agriculture is a major threat to grassland birds, reported to threaten about three times as many grassland bird species as climate change).[1][2]
    I don't know of any attempt to rate threats by the number of species they affect globally. It is quite possible that most endangered species are unknown to science (certain, if we include microorganisms). But it is very obvious that if we could wave a magic wand and make climate change never have happened, we'd still have a biodiversity crisis from all the other anthropocene messes. Researchers identifying threats to species often don't list climate change, and sometimes explicitly state that is doesn't seem to be a significant threat to an individual species. So many species will not be categorized as threatened by climate change if we accurately reflect the reliable sources.
    I think that systematically listing the threats facing species is a good idea, and so as I recall did the person at the IUCN I corresponded with when first creating these categories years ago (starting in 2015, though the overarching cat was apparently 2017). There are about 70 subcategories containing at least hundreds of pages. Such a list is necessarily incomplete, but incomplete information is still useful. HLHJ (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be in order for me (or anyone) to notify some relevant forums of this discussion, as for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants? I've made a bunch of assertions about conservation biology, and I think input from editors interested in this subject area would be valuable. HLHJ (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: If WikiProject members are watching their Alerts pages, they will see this nomination anyway, but yes, please go ahead and add notification links to this CFD on project talk pages. Notifying projects is not WP:Canvassing. You could use {{Cfd notice}}. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging and adding subcats to nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Cheers for bringing this to the attention of WP:PLANTS - I work on a lot of threatened species articles, so this is definitely relevant to my interests. For clarification, why is Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened proposed for renaming while the subcategories are proposed for deletion? If the renaming is successful, what subcategories would populate Category:Species by reasons for endangerment? I support renaming in principle, but I'm a little confused with regard to the subcategories and want to make sure I fully understand what's being proposed before I vote. I will say that I completely disagree with the deletion rationale provided thus far: incompleteness is not a reason for deletion, and I see no reason that species facing multiple threats makes these categories untenable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you , Ethmostigmus, that does need clarification. I proposed a rename; ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ converted it into a proposal to delete the category and all of its subcategories, with Faynatic later adding a "Propose deleting" list of their names. It's a bit confusing, because it's over my sig, but I didn't actually nominate anything for deletion. HLHJ (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see... There has to be a better way of listing these proposals to make it clear that they are separate but I have no idea how. Thank you for the explanation :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is problematic. The proposal to delete all the categories seems to be from HLHJ when it is not. When a delete proposal comes from the author, I tend to start from a position favouring the request (and need good reasons not to support deletion), whereas when someone else proposes the deletion I start from the sceptical position (and need strong reasons for the deletion, far better than category incomplete). I think this discussion should be restricted to the name change and the deletion issue handled in a separate discussion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was okay with the listing most of the subcategories proposed for deletion, because it made the scope more obvious at first glance: the proposed change would recursively affect many categories, not just one. It did not occur to me that it might be confusing, but then of course I'm not confused about what I had and hadn't proposed! Perhaps we could edit the "Proposed" listing to make it clear that there are two competing alternatives.
    If we delete the cats we will not bother to rename them, and if we decide to rename them we have implicitly resolved not to delete them. So I'm happy with having both discussions at once, or with having the deletion discussion first. HLHJ (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming, strongly oppose deletion of subcategories. Completely agree with the nominator that the current name is not fit for purpose and should be changed (happy with the nominator's suggestion, but will also throw out Category:Threatened species by reason they are threatened and Category:Species by IUCN Red List threats - I think avoiding the term "endanger(ed)" helps avoid confusion with the specific status of endangered). I find Zxcvbnm's deletion argument entirely unpersuasive: firstly, there is no reason we cannot apply multiple threat categories to an article, and secondly, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, why delete something incomplete instead of just expanding it? As someone who uses the IUCN Red List regularly, I see value in these categories, and Red List assessments have a set classification scheme for threats that makes articles quite easy to categorise along these lines. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that factors influence other factors; there is no clear and obvious single or even several culprits, though there may be main ones. It's too nebulous to attempt to categorize things by "reason for endangerment", all that can simply be said is that they *are* endangered and there are many ways to begin to protect them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all nebulous. The main global authority that lists threatened species is the IUCN Red List, and assessments for the Red List include lists of specific threat factors based on the IUCN's threat classification scheme. eg. the assessment for Frullania polysticta lists it as being threatened by: residential & commercial development
    (housing & urban areas/tourism & recreation areas), natural system modifications (increase in fire frequency/intensity), climate change & severe weather (habitat shifting & alteration/droughts/temperature extremes/storms & flooding). There is a preexisting system for categorising these threats developed by the preeminent global organisation dedicated to conservation and extinction research, and these categories follow that system while still leaving room for regional assessments (eg. NatureServe or EPBC). There is absolutely more to say than just that they *are* endangered - the whole point of these assessments is to identify specific threats for conservationists to counter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I used "endangered" on grounds that it was a more distinct common term, and endangered species is less organization-specific than threatened species. I don't feel strongly about this.
    I have had some use cases that would make Category:Species by IUCN Red List threats problematic. For instance, Lygodactylus williamsi was probably critically endangered when the first (recent, it was described about a century ago) study of it in its habitat was published, due to the pet trade, and I think it did not get listed by the IUCN for some years (until they next did an update). So I wrote this in the category description, I think in 2017:

    Non−IUCN Red Listed species may also be categorized, when 'officially' on other international conservation organization &/or government agency lists. As such lists are often updated slowly, newly-discovered species and threats reliably reported in the academic literature may also be acceptable (these should be discussed and cited in the article).

    I've also had several people criticize the lack of clarity that the cats include extinct species; see Talk:Aurochs#Reasons-for-endangerment categories for the most extensive example. Proposals for renamings that would clarify this would be welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I tend to think of "threatened species" as the more general term encompassing all of the various conservation statuses below LC/G5 (and DD/NE) and associate "endangered species" with a specific threat level. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong!) that these categories still apply to LC/G5 species with identified threats (eg. Pavona clavus is listed as LC, but naturally as a coral it is still threatened by a whole host of factors), which makes me lean towards something like Category:Species by threats, but that feels very general. On the other hand, Category:Species by reasons for endangerment implies (at least to me) that the species is actively considered endangered, but maybe I'm an outlier in that respect :P Interested to get input from more people on this.
    Semi-related: I would also propose that flora (plant) and fauna (animal) be removed from the category description and replaced with simply "organisms", given that there are organisms outside of those categories are sometimes assessed. Apologies for getting us bogged down in the semantics! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree on the flora and fauna -- in fact, I think there are already some other species in there -- so I've boldly removed it from the cat description. Applying threat cats to LC/G5 species with identified threats makes sense; it's not what the cat page says, quite, but we could fix that. Category:Species by threats actually sounds good to me, short and simple; since it is a metacat not actually being used to tag pages, it will only be seen in the context of a list of its subcats. Obviously we don't want a name that would imply that a species is actively endangered if it is dead or recovered, and your perceptions are useful.
    The terminology is a bit of a mess. Various governments and NGOs have very specific definitions, often inconsistent with one another; common usage, for instance in popular media, uses many of the same terms completely different senses. Asking people with no specialist knowledge at all would probably get rather muddled definitions, and I'm not sure how consistent they'd be. I'm happy with any reasonable set of terms, because I don't think there's a stand-out best set. HLHJ (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "threatened species" is better for the category as endangered is just one of the IUCN threatened categories. The IUCN red list will be the main source of the nature of the threat, so using their terminology will lessen confusion. Possibly Category:Threatened species by nature of threat.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about IUCN terminology; it is the main source. Are there any copyright concerns here? HLHJ (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a neutral term "of conservation concern" in publications. Perhaps Category:Species of conservation concern by reason of concern or something similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that too. A bit long, but precise terms often are; a useful possibility. It would be nice to have the cat and subcat names form an obvious set. HLHJ (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Category:Species of conservation concern by reason? Dropping the last "of concern"? If the subcategories were renamed, they could be
I don't (yet) have a strong opinion on delete vs. keep vs. rename. If keep, though, I am in favor of a more precise terminology, and this is an alternative naming I thought of. I got here by way of the post on WT:PLANTS (thank you). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I should thank Faynatic for the instructions. Would Category:Species by reasons for conservation concern be shorter while still being clear? Will we confuse folk if we call, say, a wooly mammoth a species of conservation concern, or say it had reasons for conservation concern? Does "conservation concern by agriculture" make it clear to everyone that agriculture is the cause of the concern? HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, but support renaming. I think that it would be more technically accurate to call the parent category "Threatened species by reason they are threatened", or the shorter "Threatened species by reason of threat" because the IUCN Redlist uses the threat terminology, whereas endangered is just one of the three threatened categories. In turn, the subcats could be renamed to "Species threatened by..." As to the subcategorization, that is absolutely something that RS can do. I have written about the reason that species are threatened and could easily categorize a species by reason of threat. Why wouldn't we categorize something that is extensively discussed by RS for many threatened species? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same objection to these as to the current name (which, to be fair, I myself picked); extinct species are not naturally termed "Threatened species". Category:Species by threat makes it clearer that that it might be a former threat. HLHJ (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, on rereading that last comment sounds a bit short, which was unintentional. I'm not sure if this name would fit Ethmostigmus's proposed scope or not. On the one hand, species with threats are logically "threatened species"; on the other hand, the IUCN formal definition of "Threatened species" would not fit all of the species currently included; for instance "Near threatened" species, which the IUCN considered to have threats, and extinct species. Sorry, this nomenclature is a mess. HLHJ (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming unfortunately the many and varied terms used for this are often tied up in regional legislations and other protective measures along with the usages and definitions of NGO's. However the IUCN Categories in the RedList are at least fairly well known and acknowledged across the board. As an aside I do not see a copywrite issue using those. I would add though that this should all be defined somewhere and possibly include in this as much information as is reasonably obtainable and presentable as to the terminiolgy in different places and what each means. For example what does Schedule 12 mean under Australian law. Whatever you use as the ames should be both clearly understandable and clearly defined with as much information on similar terminologies as possible. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realize that this is the third time that this will be relisted, but I have very good reason per WP:RELIST. Unless I am missing something, no two people agree on a rename scheme. However, there is broad consensus that a) the categories should not be deleted and b) a rename of some sort needs to happen. I am going to ping all participants to decide on a naming scheme.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I can see why this is important I have no issue with relisting and getting it right. If I can suggest Threatened Species by Causal Agent or something similar. By this I mean Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered and Extinct categorised by the Primary identified cause of the situation. By Extinct I mean the IUCN definition of Extinct which is anything since the year 1600. Prior to that too long ago, but the more recent ones can have some bearing on other taxa in the region. If you prefer to start at Vulnerable replace it with that. This would also apply to CITES I and II species, and any similar category under various Government and NGO's around the world. I suggest explaining that in some category documentation somewhere. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interested in why things went extinct before 1600s, too; for instance, the extinction of the Pleistocene Megafauna. I take your point that more recent extinctions might be more edifying, but I think we have things to learn from older extinctions. A lot of ancient species went extinct at least partly due to climate change; details of their fates, even if it happened tens of millions of years ago, are very relevant to our present and near future.
    Deciding whether these species are extinct is pretty easy (their ~dates of extinction are already listed), and there are reliable sources identifying reasons why some of them went extinct. We could have separate parallel cats for these, but it would add complexity and an arbitrary cut-off. HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a paleontologist and I study extinction, so yes of course I see the value in the extinct species. However, I was aiming at a category or set of them that listed extinctions with the same causal agent as species that are endangered now. These species could have more informative causes relevant to the efforts to prevent further extinctions. Many of these issues will be anthropogenic causes tying them all together. I chose 1600 because of the IUCN definition. In general I think modern extinctions caused by humans extend back many thousands of years before that and I have published papers on that. So I do not mind if you include more, ie go further back. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, and it's on your userpage too; apologies. At least I didn't get the impression that you didn't see value in catting the extinct species, just that you wanted scopes of tighter relevance. Perhaps we could have temporal subcats like "habitat loss in the Pleistocene", or temporospatial ones like "threatened by Pleistocene glaciation" or, say "19th-century hunting" or "hunting with firearms" for passenger pigeons? These subcats could also go into our categorizations of extinctions by geologic timescale (Category:Cenozoic extinctions etc.).
    I see your point about similar causes. For instance, while "threatened by humans" would be a depressingly large category, it seems possible to divide the threat reasons so that many of them could be placed in it (urbanization, for instance, and habitat loss to agriculture; and we already have a subcat for deliberate fires). I created these threat subcategories ad-hoc, and I'd entirely support efforts to make the schema more systematic and useful. HLHJ (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current scope, defined on the top-level category page, is all species that are or have been threatened by some threat specified in reliable sources, IUCN, local government listings, or similar. This includes:
  • extinct species (even if they aren't "threatened" or "endangered" anymore)
  • species that have recovered, and now have robust pouplations
  • obsolete threats to still-threatened species (for example, if a species was formerly threatened by logging and invasive species, and the forest is now spreading and logging is no longer a problem, but the invasive species are still a threat, both threats would still be listed)
    • Ethmostigmus suggested slightly extending the scope, pointing out that reliable sources sometimes identify threats to species that still have robust populations and therefore have never been officially listed as threatened or endangered. I have, for instance, seen this done when a species is healthy, but an invasive species or disease is spreading towards its range and is likely to catastrophically affect it in the near future. I think if a reliable expert source, like the IUCN, makes the determination that it's worth identifying a threat to a species, that is reliable information, and we can cite and categorize accordingly. I therefore support Ethmostigmus's proposal.
In summary: the species does not need to be currently threatened, the threat just has to have threatened the species at some point.
This has understandably been repeatedly misunderstood by editors. Mostly, people remove the cats from extinct species in good faith. I proposed this rename from "Endangered species by reason they are threatened" because we can't naturally say that extinct species are "endangered" or that they "are threatened".
I suggest the following terms:
  • Category:Species by threat
    • Category:Species that are or were threatened by logging
    • and so on...
This sidesteps choosing whether to call the species "threatened species", "endangered species", "species of conservation concern", etc.. The reliable sources here have different definitions of these terms, and common use is very vague. Avoiding unclear terms is an advantage. "Are or were" is a bit clumsy, but makes it very clear that these cats can be applied to extinct species. HLHJ (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very clear and makes a whole lot of sense. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this (and not just because it follows my proposal!). I do think we can probably drop the "are or were" bit from the subcats and just go with "Species threatened by [insert threat]", given that "threatened" does not necessarily imply past, current, or future threats exclusively, with a short explanation in the category descriptions. That said, not at all opposed to keeping the "are or were" if everyone else supports it, just throwing my thoughts out there. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I parse "Species threatened by [X]" the same way, Ethmostigmus, and I thought others would too. From experience, I'm now convinced that a significant number of editors don't parse it as we do. This is the only reason I'm not keen to drop the clumsy "are or were", especially as dropping it would mean no-one would need to rename roughly a hundred categories.
I'm strongly in favour of a short explanation in the category descriptions. Perhaps using a template: I could draft one based on the top-level cat's existing descriptions, prior to any renaming if that makes it easier to add. HLHJ (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to keep the "as or were" if you think misinterpretation is likely otherwise, I think that's a fair concern. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I   Agree. Can easily be applied- if we rename the category and delete the subpages, the category is pretty pointless as it is sorted by reason for endangerment. Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking my own proposal, but I suggest "Species by threats", instead of "Species by threat", because it's a good point that a great many species have multiple threats, and I think the plural is more suggestive of that. HLHJ (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B-class corvettes

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories; B-class corvette was moved to Burak-class corvette in September 2013. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft catnav/category navigation

Nominator's rationale: Expand name for clarity ("catnav" -> "category navigation"). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Monmouthshire

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Monmouthshire

Category:Education in Monmouthshire Category containing a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human viruses by year of formal description

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge entire "Human viruses" branch into "Viruses". "Human viruses" cats contain 1-2 pages each and they are all duplicates of "Viruses".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:36, 24 November 2024 (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/2024_November_24&oldid=1260713756"