Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 11

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. MER-C 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sexual fluidity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently 3 articles of which the 3rd article does not belong. No need to merge, Sexual fluidity is already in Category:LGBT; the list article is already in Category:Lists of LGBT-related people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OVERCAT as well. One of the three articles is just the eponymous article. Redundant with categories for bisexuality (which could maybe be added for the eponymous and list article) and same-sex sexuality (for the book). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 12 February 2020 (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.

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. MER-C 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sinn Féin TDs who attended fee paying schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not part of an existing category scheme, and the creator didn't create any similar categories for other political parties in Ireland. The motivation behind the creation can probably be seen by this edit and edit summary. I wasn't aware that being sent to a fee-paying school was a barrier to holding left-wing political views as an adult. FDW777 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems inappropriate and strikes me as biased standing alone. long winded name. Simply stick to Alumni of. Basically think nom. has good point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree that the category appears biased as the only one of its kind, plus it just seems overly specific.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 20:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete odd category, seems like it was set up to cast aspersions on one political party. buidhe 03:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrelevant intersection, and blatant POV-pushing. Regardless of anyone's view on the merits of people who fit the intersection, categories should no promote any POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This has the feel of being an ATTACK category, implying hypocrisy. Politicians will probably not have had much say in what school their parents chose for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I doubt anyone would be bothered commenting on the extensive list of Fine Gael(Leo Varadkar - The King's Hospital, Fianna Fail(Jack Chambers - Belvedere College, Green Party(Eamon Ryan - Gonzaga College, Social Democrat (Cian O'Callaghan - Belvedere College, Solidarity PBP(Paul Murphy - St. Kilian's German School and Richard Boyd Barrett - St Michael's College, Dublin) and other politicians was included as a Category. If you would like to start this then feel free to create a Category called Irish Politicians who attended private schools and I will happily contribute. If the leader of the most popular left wing party attended a private school along with essentially the shadow-minister for housing then I believe these are relevant points that are factual, informative and that people would like to know and surely had some contribution in shaping their character and world view. I have also created a page for the school Mary Lou attended Notre Dame School, Dublin which has proved popular for obvious reasons over the last few days. I have included no commentary or opinion on these points - just presented the informative facts in question. With regards to POV pushing I have provided no analysis or opinion nor have I taken the opinion or analysis from any independent source. I have not said whether it was their decision or their parents decision, whether they are prince or pauper, I have certainly not *ATTACKED* anyone (I have provided no narrative whatsoever) I haven't alleged hypocrisy not have I commented on their policies or financial standing. The category may be very specific I will admit but then many are. It also may not be complete but then again many are not complete. As you have noted I have included a lot of the background information in the Mary Lou McDonald Wikipedia page - she is currently quite a distance off the detail on for example Leo Varadkar or Enda Kenny or even Micheal Martin but that may be due to age and relative political success over the past 20+ years. Some of this has now been included in national and international newspapers. I think this is an important category overall and chimes with issues around there only being Oxbridge educated politicians in the UK and similar issues in France. A middle ground may be to merge it into TDs who attended fee paying schools. Financefactz (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Financefactz: The attack consists of the intersection between political party and an unrelated attribute. There is no Category:Politicians who attended fee paying schools or Category:People who attended fee paying schools; that is an attribute which you selected for the sole purpose of commenting on Sinn Féin, and your post-facto attempt to justify it by extending it to some other politicians doesn't disguise the intent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, attending a fee paying school is a trivial characteristic, regardless of political party. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's overly specific and seems to be an Attack category as Peterkingiron said. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subtle, but still ethnopolitical POV-pushing—whether intentionally or not. ——SN54129 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl: I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that if a Category: Fianna Fail TDs who attended Fee Paying Schools was established we would not be having this debate. What angle I am coming from or what angle you think I am coming from is really irrelevant as to whether or not it is a category and an accurate category."The attack consists of the intersection between political party and an unrelated attribute" - there are hundreds of inter sectional Categories across Wikipedia. I think it would be difficult to argue that a person's background doesn't influence your world view. Maybe have a look at something like List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by educationFinancefactz (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Best keep your money in your pocket, Financefactz, because you would certainly lose that bet. I have been an active participant at CFD for 14 years, and have seen countless such debates. So we would be having the same debate whatever the party was.

There problems here are well-founded in precedent and guideline:

1. Categories are based on WP:DEFINING characteristics. Not "interesting characteristics", or even "interesting characteristics". The definition set a high bar: A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define^[1] the subject as having.
   "TDs who attended Fee Paying Schools" does not fit that definition ... so it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
2. WP:TRIVIALCAT applies: Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability..
3. WP:NARROWCAT applies: If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list.

These principles of categorisation were derived from very many lengthy and wide-ranging debates, and have been broadly stable for over a decade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 26 February 2020 (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.

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 Marina Diamandis Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Marina and the Diamonds to Category:NEW CATEGORY
• Propose renaming Category:Marina and the Diamonds albums to Category:NEW CATEGORY
• Propose renaming Category:Marina and the Diamonds concert tours to Category:NEW CATEGORY
• Propose renaming Category:Marina and the Diamonds images to Category:NEW CATEGORY
• Propose renaming Category:Marina and the Diamonds songs to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: Marina Diamandis no longer uses the stage name Marina and the Diamonds, therefore these categories should definitely be renamed as the titles are outdated. The question is, what should we rename them to?

1. Marina Diamandis, for consistency with both the article and Category:Songs written by Marina Diamandis?
2. Marina (British singer), since that is the stage name Diamandis currently uses and she has never released music under her real name?
3. Just Marina, since neither Marina (Japanese singer) nor Marina (Polish singer) seem to have any associated categories? ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 11:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename using Marina Diamandis, per the article. Oculi (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Marina Diamandis, as the other names can be confusing. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick:Just Marina I can understand, but how would Marina (British singer) be confusing?--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many readers know her nationality? Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be confusing as there is no article Marina (British singer). Oculi (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using the first option, per article name Marina Diamandis. This is a simple case of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2020 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about feces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL, unlikely to be expanded, doesn't seem like a common enough topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only three songs are listed, and the only one that isn't connected to a Mozart piece (the only other songs are that very piece and a song based on it), Scheiße (song), may not actually have anything to do with feces at all (the title means "shit" in German, but in this context, is it referring to feces or just a general expletive?)--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't see this category growing beyond its current size. I can think of one other song that would fit here (Donovan's "The Intergalactic Laxative"), but it's unlikely ever to get an article. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 13 February 2020 (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.

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:Religious leaders in the United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 17:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Clergy in the United Kingdom to Category:British clergy

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Christian clergy in the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, and also because we do not have any similar categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not quite true. We also have Category:Clergy in Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. But there is no established tree here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've discovered a whole set of Category:Christian clergy by country, quite well developed, though not very well populated. However it interacts with Category:Clergy by nationality in a rather unsatisfactory way. I'm not sure we can have both, at least not without thinking about the contradictions. Generally we categorize biographies by occupation and nationality, not by country of operation. This of course has its weaknesses, because very few articles say anything explicit about the nationality of the subject. Clergy, however, (rather like sportspeople) are generally assigned to territories. So it might make sense to merge categories like Category:Argentine Roman Catholic bishops‎, which is well populated but ill defined, with Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Argentina‎ which is better defined but almost empty. Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This Argentine merge is not as straightforward: there may well have been Argentine bishops (nationality) who were a bishop in another country. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think this needs a wider discussion. NB we have just deleted a couple of "Clergy in Foo" categories, at my instigation before I realised there was a tree of them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:Christian clergy in Argentina (say) is a container category for a variety of bishops etc and is not given an 'Argentine' parent (correctly in my view). I don't see any problem with this coexisting with Category:Argentine clergy. Oculi (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT merge target of Category:Religious leaders in the United Kingdom. Agree with the assessment of @Oculi: too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge This is an unnecessary category level with one subcat, which can easily go in the parent. In theory we could have imams and rabbis siblings for the one subcat, but they are better placed directly in the parent "religious leaders". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2020 (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.

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_5#Category:Fox_Family_original_programming (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fox Family original programming to Category:Fox Family Channel original programming

Nominator's rationale: The article doesn't exist, but the redirect Fox Family Channel to the section History of Freeform (TV channel)#Fox Family does. The article says The Family Channel was renamed Fox Family Channel – though on-air promotions typically referred to the network as just "Fox Family". Seeing how Fox Family is a redirect to Fox family, the official name is a natural disambiguation here. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2020 (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.

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. MER-C 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Greyhawk creatures to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: Separating the categories by game isn't particularly useful to the general reader. There are now also only like a tenth of articles that previously existed so the primary category is not too full. TTN (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Question, if merged shouldn't it be merged to Category:Greyhawk as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After having read a number of articles it is clear to me that a single merge target is fine. Greyhawk is not a defining characteristic of these articles. I have struck my earlier question. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overly specific and unnecessary category that is of no helpfulness to non-fans._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:58, 27 February 2020 (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.

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 as empty. If the contents were moved, that ought to have been disclosed here. If they were merged and redirected, the categories should have been left on the redirect pages. Perhaps they were deleted. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons monstrous humanoids to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. Expansion is unlikely. Shrinking is more likely. Also upmerge to "Fictional humanoids." TTN (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt merge to Category:Dungeons & Dragons humanoids which is a closer fit than nomination. There is no reason to keep "monstrous" humanoids apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 11 March 2020 (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.

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Spelljammer creatures to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: Only three articles TTN (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, if merged shouldn't it be merged to Category:Spelljammer as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that none of the creature articles define themselves on series inclusion, so it was simply just a means of overcategorization when there were 600+ creature articles ten years ago. I don't see any benefit to the general user to fill up those parent categories. TTN (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overly specific and unnecessary category that is of no helpfulness to non-fans._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:57, 27 February 2020 (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.

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 The main article has been at its current location for two years now without discussion. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University alumni to Category:North Carolina A&T State University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename category to match title of parent article North Carolina A&T State University Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, alternatively the article could be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2020 (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.

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: Speedily deleted.. The category has been deleted as created by a block-evading editor. The category was currently empty, so there is nothing to merge. JBW (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Argentine trap musicians to Category:Latin trap musicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Also delete Category:Argentine trap pending an article Argentine trap. Oculi (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the creator is User:Dasevita who was blocked yesterday (and edits rolled back) then reappeared and re-did edits and is now again blocked and edits rolled back. So the category keeps emptying and re-filling. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2020 (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.