Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:University of Rostock faculty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename and consider the wider tree This has been effectively a test case nomination. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like other European universities, Rostock also has academic faculties, so this category is confusing. (see also the ongoing CfD for Comenius University faculty) buidhe 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, procedurally it is more efficient to start a batch nomination for all German faculty categories in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - agree with Marcocapelle. Category:Faculty by university or college in Germany is extensive and consistent. I would support the suggested rename for all the subcats (but not just one). Oculi (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided (1) this is a sample nom and will be followed by a wider one (2) there is not a German word cognate to faculty for academic staff. As an Englishman, I would never refer to the academic staff of a university as the faculty, as the term is used of academic divisions of the university, other levels being school and department, not the people to teach and research in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Fakultät translates to the British faculty (ie not a person). And Universities in Germany have Fakultäten: see this list. I expect this would also apply to Austria. And in French faculté is also not a person. And a search on facultés produces a list of universities in France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Oculi (talk) 09:44, 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.

Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Gender identity disorders' is an obsolete term and category per DSM-5. Relevant former 'gender identity disorder' pages have been renamed (Gender dysphoria, Gender dysphoria in children) and are being taken out of the category. Category name should be changed accordingly. Proposed target Category:Sexual disorders already exists and is a small category with no clear distinction. Thus category should be merged into target. CyreJ (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in essence this is a proposal to split this between Category:Sexual disorders and Category:Gender identity. Two distinct topics are being combined in one category which can better be separated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split - These are two distinct concepts, so they should have separate categories. Simple enough. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In addition to the DSM, the WHO has also removed "gender identity disorder" from its diagnostic manual.[1] WanderingWanda (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I alerted WP:Med to this matter. Like I stated there, gender dysphoria is still in a manual about disorders and is still considered a medical condition. Regardless of the DSM-5 renaming the condition to remove the word disorder to reduce stigma, the condition still technically falls under the definition of a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder (if one prefers the latter term) because of the distress involved. Also see the "Definition" section of the Mental disorder article. What other medical categorization do we have for it? We have Category:Transgender and medicine and Category:Psychiatric diagnosis. It's in those categories as well. Is it sufficient to just have them in those categories? Simply calling it a "condition" or "medical condition" is vague. A proposal to split "Sexual disorder" and "Gender identity disorder" might be considered sound. After all, we already have Category:Sexual disorders. But I question letting Category:Gender identity stand in place of Category:Identity disorders and Category:Gender identity disorders. I know that "Category:Gender identity disorders" doesn't exist. Also, the Gender dysphoria article is already in Category:Gender identity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking to gender dysphoria still being in a manual about disorders, Sam Winter, a public health professor at Australia's Curtin University, told NBC News that "the next big question is what will the American Psychiatric Association do, because the DSM is still a compendium of mental disorders and thus categorizes some people as disordered if they meet the threshold for 'gender dysphoria,' or GD." And like the source notes, what the WHO renamed was the diagnosis of transsexualism; it was renamed "gender incongruence" and moved from the "Mental and Behavioral Disorders" chapter to the "Conditions Related to Sexual Health" chapter. But, sure, categories that were labeled gender identity disorders will also fall under "gender incongruence" once the ICD-11 takes effect in 2022. Those behind the move have also noted that it's not ideal because it's important to keep gender identity issues and sexual issues separate; they are confused or conflated enough. But Winter also notes that removing the diagnoses for trans people entirely would be counterproductive. "Quite a few trans people seek substantial ongoing healthcare — it can be life changing, or even life saving. So we need a diagnosis," he stated. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
And removing it from Category:Identity disorders? The question for me is "Will readers reasonably look for gender dysphoria under an identity disorder category?" And my answer on that is yes. Body integrity dysphoria, which also has alternative names, including "body integrity disorder", is also in Category:Identity disorders. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is best discussed in a new section. See below. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since user:Rab V and user:Crossroads were involved in a discussion about this, they may want to be notified. I've also posted a notice to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT Studies and on the Gender dysphoria talk page. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the explanation given by Flyer22 Frozen to which I have nothing to add. Thanks for the ping by the way. Crossroads -talk- 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major relevant organizations have removed or announced they would remove the disorder label. They have also discussed why the label is not accurate. The split also seems natural. Rab V (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... Regarding ICD-11: (α) The World Health Organization (WHO) published ICD-11 online on 18 Jun 2018. ¶ (β) Member nations will implement (begin using) ICD-11 at different times over the next 10 years or so. WHO does not explain the term "comes into effect", but it probably is the date when WHO will be ready to receive health statistics using ICD-11 codes. (However, note that the ICD-11 Implementation or Transition Guide (p. 1) states, "ICD11 is now available for implementation, following its adoption at the World Health Assembly on 25 May 2019...."). ¶ (γ) Most importantly, the fact that some nations will begin reporting health statistics using ICD-11 codes in 2022 does not render ICD-11 content meaningless. WHO developed ICD-11 over several years (for a brief summary, see the ICD-11 Reference Guide at 1.2.3 Revision major steps and 1.7.12 Preparations for the Eleventh Revision) with input from scientific and medical societies, government organizations, subject matter experts, etc., from around the world. And, in an exceptionally transparent process (in contrast to DSM-5 development), WHO encouraged and took seriously comments and proposed modifications from anyone with an email address. (WHO continues to welcome such comments and proposals as part of the ICD-11 continuous improvement effort.) Plus, even though WHO did not publish the official ICD-11 until mid-2018, research, analysis, and scholarly debate on the eleventh revision began in the 2000s and will continue into the future. A PubMed search reveals 935 articles and book chapters with "ICD-11" in the title or abstract, and a Google Scholar search indicates 811 publications where "ICD-11" appears in the title and 23 400 (twenty-three thousand, four hundred) publications where "ICD-11" appears anywhere in the publication. ¶ (δ) When a company produces a for-profit diagnostic manual, along with several related books, guides, and training programs (all for sale), the "effective date" (publication date) is important. When WHO publishes the eleventh ICD revision online—at no cost to anyone—for member nations to begin using when they are ready, an official "effective date" does not have the same meaning. After all, the ICD-11 content available today will not magically become meaningful on 1 Jan 2020 2022.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:50, 15 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.

Category:Identity disorders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No action (WP:NAC). The category was deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_12#Category:Identity_disorders. DexDor (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: As discussed above, medical organizations have moved away from the "disorder" terminology when covering transgender topics. The DSM changed "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" specifically to avoid calling it a disorder. The World Health Organization went further, not only changing "gender identity disorders" to "gender incongruence", but also changing the entire category structure so that transgender-related categories would not fall under "disorder" categories, moving them out of "Mental and behavioural disorders" and into "Conditions related to sexual health".

If readers see transgender articles filed under "disorder" categories they will perceive Wikipedia as being out of date at best, and as engaging in POV-pushing at worst. WP:CATV says that Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. and Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

So, in addition to getting rid of "Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders", as discussed above, we should also ensure that no trans articles wind up in "Category:Identity disorders". (Perhaps we should even consider getting rid of the Identity disorders category altogether, as it's not a very large category.) Pinging everyone involved in above discussion (except Flyer, who generally requests not to be pinged): User:Cyrej, user:Marcocapelle, user:Kaldari, user:Crossroads, user:Rab V – WanderingWanda (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the only transgender articles in Category:Identity disorders are Gender dysphoria and Blanchard's transsexualism typology. It's not like the Transgender article is in that category. And "generally be uncontroversial" doesn't mean that articles should never be placed in a category that will be controversial. We can't stop the fact that some categories will be controversial. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:40, 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.

Category:Alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Awkward current title. The proposed one is more succinct and in line with established category trees, particularly Category:Aviation accidents and incidents. Brandmeistertalk 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Overly long title. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Agree on current awkwardness. The proposed name is definitely better. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree this is a more readable title. —PaleoNeonate – 19:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.— TAnthonyTalk 21:39, 6 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.

Category:People from County of London (before 1965)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article, and a subcategory, which is already in Category:People from London by locality. The history of the boundaries of London is quite complicated and this intermediate category doesnt seem helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, i.e. manually move the article, then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just delete it. The one article directly in the category does not even mention London, presumably a birthplace. There is also a North Woolwich subcat, but the one person in that is also categorised as from London Borough of Newnham, so that we lose nothing. It might be possible to have a category (container only) for Inner London, covering those London Boroughs within LCC to 1965 and then (for education) handled by Inner London Education Authority until 1980s, but I dount that is helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer @Liz:, see my post at 18:35, 16 March 2020 above. Correcting the county and year fields of "Template:London people message" emptied the category, so I posted here to explain. TSventon (talk) 02:29, 19 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.

Category:People from South London[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We divide the city, like others, by borough and locality. This seems both ill defined and unnecessary. Rathfelder (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- London is a big place. South London is defined as the part south of river Thames, so that POV issues do not arise as to where it stops and the next division starts. However it would be much better for the articles to be dispersed by London Borough in the usual way. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I propose to do, though I suspect this category has arisen because there is insufficient information in the articles to place them in boroughs. But the same issues arise in respect of people from North, East and West London. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 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.

Category:Fictional location redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Redirects from fictional locations to Category:All fictional location redirects and restructure accordingly. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These are topically duplicate categories. The arrangement principle is a different (one's a big dump, the other subcategorized, but not 100% consistently – there are a few "loose" entries in there and probably always will be). If it were desirable to have such a split and actually enforce it, they should at least have distinguishable names, like "All fictional location redirects" and "Fictional location redirects by work, franchise, or genre", but there's really no reason to do that. Just set the diffusion in the header template of a single category, so things can be listed in the "all" list in the category plus also be categorized by work/franchise/genre or whatever other criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but... The {{R from fictional location}} template automatically adds Category:Redirects from fictional locations for a reason I've never understood. It already places redirects in subcats based on the use of modifiers like {{R from fictional location|Star Wars}}, and redirects are placed in Category:Fictional location redirects if this modifier is not used. A simple template change will empty this category instantly, and no valuable categorization will be lost. I believe the character and element redirect templates do the same thing.— TAnthonyTalk 15:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Part of the difficulty (see "what venue?" RfC on talk page) of rcat XfDs is that they're usually categories and templates in pairs, so changes to one tend to imply changes to the other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename: There's a distinction between redirects whose target is a fictional location, and those that are from fictional locations. Notably many fictional locations redirect to "List of places in..." pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have no issue with have separate to/from categories, but it's not clear that's what is going on right now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely not going on, the template merely adds every redirect to both Category:Fictional location redirects and Category:Redirects from fictional locations.— TAnthonyTalk 03:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pick one name and use it (so support) - I actually wanted to bring the whole fictional redirect tree up for discussion but was reluctant to bring it up to CfD and no one responded at the project page. Regarding this top level category - I agree, these are complete duplicates. Template:R from fictional location adds every redirect to Category:Redirects from fictional locations. It then also adds redirects either to a specific user entered category or to Category:Fictional location redirects if none is provided. Those user-entered categories are then added to a media-specific one which in turn is added back right to Category:Fictional location redirects. So every redirect is added to both. While this isn't the scope of this discussion, I feel the indeed to put this out there. The current scheme of the other fictional category (character, element and also episode) redirects which uses "x to lists" has been wrong for a long time now. Some of them for a few years. They should adopt the naming style of the location categories which is just "x location redirects" and not "x location redirects to lists". --Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and I entirely trust you to work that out into something sensible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I have templates that are heavily involved with the 4 fictional categories and templates. If you nominate any more of them, I'd appreciate a ping so I can watch the discussion and be able to adjust the code. --Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. Not meaning to step on any toes. I don't recall having any others in mind other than the comics ones, because several of them seem to have a questionable rationale to exist, and most of them have confusing names. But I might leave that for someone else to deal with. I'm kind of out of rcat cleanup steam for now. (I'm actually more interested in subdividing swamps like Category:Redirects from subtopics a bit more finely; thus {{R from subsidiary}} and {{R from subdivision}} lately. Doing some split-offs for bio stuff would probably be well-advised. E.g. {{R from employee}} with redirects from {{R from executive}}, etc., instead of just {{R from person}}.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Thank you for explaining the template issue more clearly than I did. I honestly don't see it being controversial to edit the template to eliminate the redundancy.— TAnthonyTalk 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'd still have a category to up-merge away though, right?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I was thinking was just eliminating the addition of Category:Redirects from fictional locations from the template. That category will then be empty and can be deleted, and then Category:Fictional location redirects, which has the functionality allowing subcategories by creative work, can be renamed if necessary to fit better in the hierarchy. I doubt there are too many redirects to fictional locations but that's something I can separate out with an AWB run later.— TAnthonyTalk 03:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I don't even want to think about whether there are F-loads of Middle-earth and Elder Scrolls redirs from minor locations to fictional country articles and such; one hopes that most of this is covered by list articles by now. (I say that as a fan of both, mind you. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't have a preference but just adding this info. Category:Fictional location redirects (sort of) follows the naming of the category Category:Fiction redirects (not the tree itself) so "Fiction(al) x redirects", while Category:Redirects from fictional locations follows the naming of the category tree Category:Redirect tracking categories ("Redirects from x") which most in it do (that category should really use sort keys so they won't all end up under "R"). (Also, this category is also in Category:Fiction-based redirects to list entries but as I said, none of the templates are categorizing only lists which means it itself is irrelevant here). --Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the naming of Category:Fictional location redirects is not an aberration in the hierarchy, it's probably more appropriate because it could include both redirects from fictional locations and redirects to them. And obviously, we already have medium/creative-work subcategories there. I would also argue that differentiating between "from" and "to" here may be useless. If you look at Redirects to the Middle-earth article, you see locations like territories, cities, and rivers redirected to Middle-earth#Geography, which is itself an article about a location. So arguably they're both "to" and "from". And assuming you consider rivers and lakes to be locations, I can see only two proper noun that are not locations which redirect to the article (Fell Winter and Dawnless Day). I'm guessing we'd see a similar percentage across other franchises.— TAnthonyTalk 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me that Category:Fictional location redirects is the better option. I always read "R from fictional location" to mean that the subject we are talking about is the redirect, so it will always be "from a location" regardless of what the target is. But I can now see that maybe that isn't how everyone reads it and as such "Fictional location redirects" clears any ambiguity to it. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this reversal of the originally proposed merge direction works for me, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Redirects from fictional locations is the one that should remain. Why would there ever be a need to classify a redirect as being to a fictional location? That redirect will always be something unrelated, or a fictional location in its own right, or a fictional element, or a fictional character. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these redirects need to pool into one large category as they do currently. If all these redirects were properly categorized then they'll be segregated into hundreds if not thousands of subcategories. It becomes impossible to curate. I certainly wouldn't even look at them if I had to trawl through dozens of different Category:Insert series here location redirects. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the remaining category being Category:Redirects from fictional locations, but I do think it needs the subcategories already in play in Category:Fictional location redirects. I'm not sure I see how 1300 redirects listed in Category:Redirects from fictional locations is more navigable than the redirect hierarchy that already exists under Category:Fictional location redirects. This is an accepted hierarchy for character and episode redirects and it seems to be working fine. And in the case of locations, there are less series/franchise-specific categories in favor of medium. I'd certainly rather keep both categories over deleting the curated one.— TAnthonyTalk 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But all the fictional character redirects are also in Category:Redirects from fictional characters. Correct me if I misunderstood, but you want to change the location template so it doesn't auto-populate the corresponding category. If the characters template did the same thing then I would never even attempt to curate them. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have the same issue with the character article hierarchy but that's a big can of worms lol. Xezbeth I've seen you working with character redirects and should have thought to invite you to this discussion sooner. How and for what kind of tasks are you actually using Category:Redirects from fictional characters, which currently has over 38,000 entries? The template simultaneously adds them to Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, where they are currently subcategorized. It seems a bit redundant to have both of these categories when the contents are exactly the same, just "sorted" differently. I could see some value in the large category if its criteria were somehow different from the subcat hierarchy. I mean, obviously every redirect from a character name does not point to a list, but removing {{R from fictional character}} from such a redirect takes it out of both categories. The location categories seem even more redundant because they are "Fictional location redirects" and "Redirects from fictional locations", neither with any specification "to lists". I'm very interested in your opinions on this.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "x to lists" scheme is around 4 years outdated (the time when the templates changed) and really needs to be renamed to match the location one which is correct. These are "Redirects from fictional characters" (or "Fictional character redirects"), there is no point in having these separated into lists, "character redirects to section" and "character redirects to anchors". --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories are fine for grouping similar redirects together. I use the big category for checking related changes, and I watchlist it so I can see everything that the template gets added to or removed from. If Category:Video game location redirects and similar functioned as the "parent" categories then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but I'd still prefer a single big one. I agree that Category:Fictional location redirects is redundant and can be upmerged without much trouble, but I would prefer to keep the Redirects from fictional locations name to maintain parity with the fictional characters and elements categories. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reasoning. I for one can accept keeping the big category as-is since it is useful to you (and probably other editors), but I prefer having the subcats like Category:Television location redirects positioned separately under Category:Fictional location redirects so I can easily see new entries. If we're keeping both, what about renaming Category:Fictional location redirects to Category:Fictional location redirects by medium or something? Would it be weird that below those cats we have some franchise-specific categories like Category:Arrow (TV series) location redirects? Also, any change like this here should probably be matched in the character and element redirect categories, but whether that would work will depend on how we feel about "redirects to lists". Xezbeth I know you work a lot with this, the templates only allow for "redirects to lists", should we also have a category for other kinds of redirects like Super Luigi, or do we even need to separate "to lists" from everything else?— TAnthonyTalk 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any change in the location system should obviously be done to its sister categories. Regarding changing the name to "by medium", are you proposing that we still have Category:Redirects from fictional locations-> Category:Fictional location redirects by medium? or that the top category be changed to Category:Fictional location redirects by medium? I see problems with both. In the first situation you basically have a sub-category just for the sake of having a sub-category. You can just put the mediums in the top category. If it's the latter, then you are calling the category "by medium" but it also has all redirects in it as pages, which is not a by-medium sorting (or are we proposing removing this giant-cat?). --Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to repeat what I said above, "to lists" isn't the only allowed links supported by the template text for years. It's again, a case of inertia of editors (and more specially, the red-link of template prompting you to create it). Each time I have to create one of these new categories I cringe as I know that I'm adding items aren't what the category says they are. --Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The technical quirk with upmerging the "medium" categories like Category:Television location redirects into Category:Redirects from fictional locations is that we want to preserve the subcategorized items/functionality but still have every redirect listed in the full, mixed list (what we can call the Xezbeth category LOL). Even if it's feasible to have redirects in both places, this makes it impossible to identify which redirects are new and uncategorized. As far as having "a sub-category just for the sake of having a sub-category", it is common to have container categories collecting subcategories, and I think many/most genre or medium categories I've seen behave this way? I'm basically advocating for keeping the structure as-is but changing the name of Category:Fictional location redirects to read as less redundant of its parent category Category:Redirects from fictional locations, and to be more specific about its actual contents.— TAnthonyTalk 15:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so your interested in a category to catch the uncategorized redirects? Why not make the 2nd category then "Category:Uncategorized location redirects? --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems better to categorize that on the side rather than as an intervening "filter" category layer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 29 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.

Category:Catchphrases[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This relates directly to the rcat merger below. It seems to me that Category:Catchphrases should at bare minimum be a subcat of Category:Slogans especially since the alleged distinction is quite blurry. We have no Category:Mottoes or Category:Taglines; Category:Slogans is the catchall. Looking at the subcats of both, I believe it would be completely harmless and actually desirable to just completely upmerge Category:Catchphrases to Category:Slogans; the majority of things in Category:Catchphrases are not fictional, but are slogans, mottoes, taglines, snowclones, sayings, and other things that can fit under "slogans" (some of the content of which is already named something else, like "sayings"). In short, the distinction is artificial, not actually maintained or understood, and clearly confusing, since so much stuff in the one – if we were to accept a disinction being real – actually belongs in the other. To make this work, I think we'd need to create a Category:Fictional catchphrases or Category:Catchphrases from fiction as a subcat of Category:Slogans, and recat various articles into it (along with Category:Science fiction catchphrases‎, the only fiction subcat of Category:Catchphrases). Probably best to also have soft catredirs from "Catchphrases", "Mottoes", and "Taglines" to "Slogans" to prevent future category forks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should also merge, since the contents are – just as in the catchphrases case – a wild mix of slogans, catchphrases, taglines, and actual mottoes (if you consider these terms to have distinct meanings some of the time) – both real-world and fictional, both commercial and non-commerce-related. It's the same problem of a terminological WP:POV fork, which is again resulting in failure of like-with-like categorization. If that "mottos" category were kept at all, it should be as a subcat of slogans, with specific inclusion criteria that agree with the Motto article; and it should move to the mottoes spelling (every major dictionary lists this as the preferred plural form – I checked). But it would be better to flat-out merge them, because editors are not going to read the category header before applying the category. If we use catredirs, we can have a bot auto-upmerge to slogans when people accidentally populate one of the essentially synonymous categories (usually with an entry that does not agree with the actual content of Motto, Catchphrase or Tagline).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "slogan" has a commercial or intent-to-persuade connotation, see also discussion further down on this page. Catchphrase and Slogan are separate articles too. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: No major dictionaries (i.e. reliable sources on English usage) appear to agree with such a distinction; it seems to be kind of an original-research thing by WP editors in the aggregate (perhaps following some faint and undocumented usage trends in popular culture) trying to separate commercial from other cases. Let's go over the dictionaries in detail (skipping specialized side-definitions relating to storytelling, monuments, medieval battles, etc.), on all four of the relevant terms (slogan, catch[-| ]phrase, motto, and tag[-| ]line; I skipped catch[-| ]word, since it's just a one-word catchphrase).
Random House, Collins, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Houghton-Mifflin:
  • The dictionary aggregator Dictionary.com (with the Random House Unabridged Dictionary [US] database, and the Collins English Dictionary [UK] database) is especially pertinent on this; it not only does not imply anything commercial-in-particular about slogan, it gives catch[-| ]phrase as a synonym, unqualified: "a distinctive cry, phrase, or motto of any party, group, manufacturer, or person; catchword or catch phrase. ... a distinctive or topical phrase used in politics, advertising, etc." The separate entry for catch[-| ]phrase is treated as a subset, though with some narrowed senses (that aren't pertinent to our treatment of the subject, or how we are using these words as [mis]categorizers: "a well-known frequently used phrase, esp one associated with a particular group, etc", "a phrase that attracts or is meant to attract attention", "a phrase, as a slogan, that comes to be widely and repeatedly used, often with little of the original meaning remaining." Motto is given as essentially a subset: "a sentence, phrase, or word expressing the spirit or purpose of a person, organization, city, etc., and often inscribed on a badge, banner, etc.', plus some narrower specialized senses. Tagline is also a subset: "a phrase or catchword that becomes identified or associated with a person, group, product, etc., through repetition" (though Collins wants to make that one commercial).
  • Oxford Living English Dictionary database (now at Lexico.com, for the free version) is more brief and seems at first more inclined to separate some meanings – but not in a way consistent with what WP is doing, and it doesn't last: Slogan: "A short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising. A motto associated with a political party or movement or other group." So, synonymy with motto and only commercial sometimes as every word in this category is. Catch[-| ]phrase: "A well-known sentence or phrase, especially one that is associated with a particular famous person." (Nothing about fictional characters.) Motto: "A short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals of an individual, family, or institution." Tag[ |-]line: "A catchphrase or slogan, especially as used in advertising, or the punchline of a joke." So, full-circle to slogan, catchphrase, tagline, and motto being effectively synonymous according to what's generally considered the authority on English usage.
  • Merriam-Webster.com next. Their definitions of slogan: "a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand or a goal to be achieved; a brief attention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion" (= only commercial sometimes). Catch[-| ]phrase: "a word or expression that is used repeatedly and conveniently to represent or characterize a person, group, idea, or point of view" (i.e., the same as slogan definition 1, but more general). Motto: "a short expression of a guiding principle" (they seem to be the only dictionary to prefer a meaning this narrow). Tag[-| ]line: "a reiterated phrase identified with an individual, group, or product : SLOGAN" (i.e. synonymous with slogan and also essentially the same definition as catch[-| ]phrase!).
  • American Heritage Dictionary next (usually AHDictionary.com, but I'm not getting a connection to it right this moment, so reading it via the YourDictionary.com dictionary aggregator): Motto: "A phrase expressing the aims or nature of an enterprise, organization, or candidate; a motto. A phrase used repeatedly, as in advertising or promotion". Catch[-| ]phrase: "A phrase in wide or popular use, especially one serving as a slogan for a group or movement." (So much for a slogan vs. catch[-| ]phrase vs. motto distinction.) Motto: "A brief statement used to express a principle, goal, or ideal" (rather specific, yet the slogan entry gives it as an unqualified synonym). Tag[-| ]line: "An often repeated phrase associated with an individual, organization, or commercial product; a slogan." (Unqualified synonymy again, and full-circle for all four terms, as in Oxford.)
  • Webster's New World College Dictionary (the Houghton-Mifflin Webster's database, also via YourDictionary again): Slogan: "a catchword or rallying motto distinctly associated with a political party or other group; a catchphrase used to advertise a product" (cross-synonymy again, and only sometimes commercial again). Catch[-| ]phrase: "a phrase that catches or is meant to catch the popular attention" (which is what all four of these terms refer to). Motto: "a word, phrase, or sentence chosen as expressive of the goals or ideals of a nation, group, family, etc. and inscribed on a seal, banner, coin, coat of arms, etc.; a maxim adopted as a principle of behavior" (going for the narrow, mostly historical senses here, but they already said slogan means "a catchword or rallying motto"). Tag[-| ]line: "slogan (noun)". (Yep, H-M Webster's is that unequivocal about it.)
Obviously, WP doesn't and can't have a 1:1 relationship between articles and categories (even on conceptual topics; I don't mean a separate category per bio or novel, of course), or we'd have 100 × more categories. The sources are telling us loud and clear that all four of these terms are synonymous except in specialized usage. While maybe WP can be effective in providing articles that separate some or all of them, by exploring these nuances and their histories, it's become very clear that this is specialized background knowledge, not general usage. It cannot practicably be used as a categorization system; whether something qualifies as a "slogan", a "catchphrase/word", a "motto", or a "tagline" is purely a matter idiolect, of personal opinion and preference.

This is a very strong rationale to merge the categories, especially since a) we have evidence right in front of our eyes of conflicting categorization behavior and thus category "pollution" and accidental PoV-forking, and b) we already have subcategories for more specific things (commercial, political, individual, fictional, and even more narrow) that fit perfectly into a combined category and help group like-with-like in the category tree. The ability to do that is directly impeded by splitting one term, catchphrase, off from the other three that share a single category. Especially since much of the stuff in that category is more properly covered by one of other terms' more nuanced senses. (If any of them had a slight case for forking, it would be motto, but even then it would just be a subcat.) I think this is the most detailed case I've ever made at CfD, but it actually took not all that long; copy-paste is a great tool. :-)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose From the cited dictionaries themselves it's evident that they have distinct meanings. Particularly, the Oxford's definition of a catchphrase as "a well-known sentence or phrase, especially one that is associated with a particular famous person, ‘the movie gave the world the catchphrase ‘I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse". A slogan, on the other hand, is defined by Oxford either as "a short and striking or memorable phrase used in advertising" or as "a motto associated with a political party or movement or other group". This means that "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse", for example, is a catchphrase, whereas Keep Calm and Carry On or Don't be evil are slogans. Our catchphrase and slogan articles handle these differences. Brandmeistertalk 10:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not appear to have read them closely, then, since in the case of every single major dictionary, they indicate general synonymy, except in specialized contexts, which are not the contexts that apply to using this as a categorizer on Wikipedia. This is not the same as an argument to merge the articles, which do provide distinguishing context that explores how these terms sometimes can mean distinct things. The very obvious fact (obvious from category content) is that these distinctions do not exist consistently between different editors' minds (or at all in many of them) in a categorization context, so it fails at a cat. split, as is evidenced by the categories' contents bearing pretty much no clear relationship to any distinction drawn in our articles much less in reliable sources (remember that our articles are not sources). Please do not confuse word/term history as an encyc. topic with word/term usage on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dictionaries do not imply that the concepts are the same. They do imply the concepts are related. However being related is not a sufficient reason for merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. They may show near-synonyms, but the definitions appear subtly different. While catchphrase is "a phrase that attracts or is meant to attract attention" or "a phrase, as a slogan, that comes to be widely and repeatedly used, often with little of the original meaning remaining", a slogan is "a distinctive cry, phrase, or motto of any party, group, manufacturer, or person". With that in mind, again, things like Truth prevails are slogans or mottos - they are distinctive, belonging to a party or person, and typically succinct by their nature. Catchphrases instead may be longer than slogans in practice and may not advocate a particular goal. The categories' content distinguishes them as well (with some possible exceptions where recategorization may be warranted). Although not an RS for encyclopedic purposes, there was a discussion on that matter between native English speakers a while ago. Brandmeistertalk 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to retain these as separate categories (though in a better tree so stuff doesn't remain as badly ghettoized and miscategorized as we can see has been happening to date) we're going to need to have clear criteria/definitions at the top of each category. In this thread and the related one below, various editors offer their own personal senses of what these terms mean, but they do not agree with each other, do not agree consistently with our articles on the subjects, and don't with the cited major dictionaries either. We can see right in front of our eyes that the current "system" of categorizing these things has resulted in a large percentage of the articles being miscategorized, whether going by the sourceable definitions or by the idiosyncratic WP:IKNOWIT ones being offered here.

    Frankly, I'm rather floored at the amount of refusal to understand that when all the dictionaries list all these terms as cross-synonymous, full circle, except sometimes having more distinct meanings in specialized contexts, this resolves to "Means A, except can sometimes mean B". It does not resolve to "Means B, thus we must separately categorize no matter what." Even if we pretend it did resolve to a flat "Means B", a necessity to separately categorize would not logically auto-follow from that; we merge similar categories to the extent feasible, especially when the alleged distinctions are subjective and are not being observed. Here and in the related CfD below, some respondents are actually saying "Means C" or "Means only A1", in disagreement with the sources anyway, which kind of proves the point. [sigh] E.g., all this insistence that a particular term is necessarily tied to marketing or politics or whatever, is not borne out in the sources when we don't cherry pick and engage in selective OR. It's particular unhelpful to latch onto part of one definition in one dictionary that seems to agree with one's own idiolect, then ignore all the other material that again and again keeps indicating general synonymy, especially when the part of that definition one liked for term X can be found in the definitions for term Y in the next dictionary over.

    Keep Calm and Carry On or Don't be evil, for example, are "really" mottoes under many definitions "not" slogans, but only if you're selectively blind. The fact that someone above wants them to be slogans not mottoes is a good illustration that a split here is not helpful. And at least KCaCO is a catchphrase, even under narrow definitions, because it's very intent was to be catchy and repeated. Another example: In the related thread below, someone stated 'I maintain that "slogan" seems to carry more commercial connotation than "catchphrase"', which gets right to the core of the problem here: it's what someone is personally "maintaining", which doesn't match what the soruces are saying nor actual facts about how the terms are used and what is being categorized. The vast majority of the sources include political and other non-commercial slogans as slogans, per se; meanwhile, the vast majority of things we are classifying as catchphrases are from commercial intellectual property (TV series, movies, etc.), and have the specific intent of being memorable things that people strongly associate with that property and repeat (i.e., are slogans that serve at least in part a marketing purpose. Ever noticed that you can buy licensed products with most well-known entertainment-sourced catchphrases?). You can't have it both ways.

    We're right back to asking how we're supposed to distinguish these things for encyclopedic categorization if we keep them separate. Latching onto one dictionary suggesting, e.g., that slogans are commercial or political isn't going to fly, because that's only part of its definition even in that one source, it doesn't match other sources' definitions, and the same polit. & marketing definitions are also applied by many of the sources to one or more of the other words. And they're all saying at one point or another a slogan is a catchphrase and a motto is a slogan and a tagline is a catchphrase and etc., in a big loop or cross-synonymy web. I'm at a loss for any way to make this any clearer. We don't actually gain anything by forking these categories by these confusing terms. I would make much more sense to sub-categorize by subject (political, fictional, commercial, etc.), and that's how to also handle the specialized nuanced meanings (heraldic mottoes, etc.).
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 20 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.

Category:Redirects from route numbers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. We have no use for a maintenance category with four pages in it. While there are likely others that could be added, there appears to be no interest in doing so (i.e. no actual maintenance need) on the part of the wikiprojects and individual editors who are working on transport/highway articles. There's a {{Polluted category}} tag on it, which suggests it is periodically an "attractive nuisance" into which people dump other articles, due to the ambiguity of the word "route" (here it means rural route). This is also effectively a TfD of Template:R from route number, and TfD will be cross-notified. I could see possibly keeping the template as a redirect to a "something" more general, and upmerging to a corresponding "something"-category, but I don't see a "something" pair to use. Also notified US Roads WikiProject, and Twinkle talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—since I didn't know this was a thing, I haven't used it, and I'm hardly the only one in this situation. So I would say that it's not a lack of interest in using this, which I find very useful, but rather a lack of awareness. Really, there are thousands of redirects that should be tagged, and would be, had we known about this previously. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The utility of this category and the "R from" template are lost on me and I work almost exclusively on these types of articles. –Fredddie™ 05:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- All we have is four roads in Leon County, Florida, which are redirected to various substantive articles. Not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge to a suitable rcat, without leaving a redirect. With only four transclusions, it should not take much to manually update those transclusions. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. This would have been much more populated had I not hit a slump, and there are possibly thousands of potential redirects to be placed here. It should not have gotten a "polluted category" and I don't know what rural route has to do with this in any way. Also, WP:NOEFFORT is called out explicitly as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If Bushranger, et al., want to actually populate and use it, then I'll switch to Keep and populate. PS: NOEFFORT ("Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)" applies to arguments to delete articles because they've not been improved yet; at TfD and CfD we do in fact regularly delete templates and categories that are too disused to bother with, especially if they are for internal purposes and are not reader-facing. No one is making an argument relating to failure to do work, but rather an observation of lack of utility. You're asserting impending utility, and that's good enough for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just started putting the appropriate redirect from Michigan in the category, and it's up to 74 listings. That should be enough of a start for a keep, right? Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Bushranger. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:42, 4 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.

Category:Councils of government in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. According to the main article, CoGs are a concept specific to the United States. I'm not sure if the resulting cat should be "Councils of governments" or "Councils of government"; the main article seems inconsistent. Raymie (t • c) 06:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All entries are US, and the term does appear to be US-specific. The double-plural is correct for the category name (multiple councils of multiple governments). The present article title, Council of governments is logically impossible, so I'm WP:RMing at its talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a redundant and overly specific category, created after the original. "Councils of governments" is correct. "Councils of government" would be incorrect. Each one is a single council composed of multiple (local) governments, or to flip it, multiple governments coming together to form one council. Station1 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am slightly surprised that what sounds as if it might apply to many countries should turn out to be US specific. I would suggest merging both to Category:Local government associations in United States or such like, but I expect the rest of you won't like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar organizations in other countries come under Category:Local government organizations. - Station1 (talk) 20:58, 6 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.

Category:Redirects from catchphrases[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The slogans category/template already also encompass mottoes and taglines. In general usage of these terms, there's not a consistently clear distinction, and the categories' contents are a mixture of phrases from fiction and from non-fiction contexts, including politics and advertising (to the extent that much of anything said in advertising isn't a form of fiction). The only way I can see keeping this separate is making catchphrases a subcat of slogans, and updating the templates and the category descriptions to draw a distinction, in boldface, between phrases from fiction as catchphrases (I guess) and all others as slogans/mottoes/taglines. Even then, this will not really agree with real-world usage of these terms, which overlap wildly, so I do not support that option, just a straightforward merge. Given the small number of items in the categories (under 100 and under 200, respectively) a complete merger is no kind of problem. I'll point both the categories and their rcat templates to this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I understand your reasoning for combining them (though linguistically it's tricky to pick a clear name that full encapsulates both), but the reason they're separate is because they're subcategories of Category:Catchphrases and Category:Slogans respectively. Adding a template such as {{R from catchphrase}} conveniently categorises the page as both a redirect and a catchphrase (in a subcat of both). If all the redirects from catchphrases were in Category:Redirects from slogans, people would add the redirects manually to Category:Catchphrases and the catchphrases would arguably be categorised incorrectly as slogans. M.Clay1 (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. [Longer comments moved to new CfM, above.] I think I'll just nominate a full merger.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC); trimmed, 13:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose... "slogan" to me has a commercial or intent-to-persuade connotation. For example, Steve Urkel's "Did I do that?" is certainly a catchphrase but is it a slogan? Feels awkward to me to call it that. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Wow, I forgot I created these things ... but basically, per Jason Quinn. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jason Quinn and Steel1943: Please see the extensive proof in the main-category CfM above that your personal perception of the distinction is just personal and is uniformly contradicted by reliable sources on English usage. We cannot rely on highly variable and idiosynractic senses of nuanced differences that are not common among English-speakers in general, as a categorization system. (Heck, to the extent there are some attested specialized distinctions between these words, they're not the ones you suggest. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unpersuaded by the "proof" and don't think it supports your conclusion, as others have already noted. I maintain that "slogan" seems to carry more commercial connotation than "catchphrase" both in the set of definitions you provided and in common American usage (I cannot say for sure in other varieties of English). I also think having two separate categories are useful: an editor interested in TV history might be interested in focusing on catchphrase articles but not commercial slogans while a business or advertising-minded editor might be more interested in slogans. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Slogans are usually catchy phrases like the Boy Scouts' "do a good turn daily"; however, catchphrases, such as "never mind" from Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live), are not always slogans. The two, slogans and catchphrases, can be very different things. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge in principle. This is why CfD is the appropriate venue for discussions about the rcats. I 👍 Like it. Note, too, that {{R from meme}} is, bizarrely, proposed for deletion and redirecting to the much broader {{R from subtopic}} category. With 120+ transclusions, and growing, and as many listings in the maintenance category, such a move makes no sense. This, however, does as "catch phrases" and "slogans" are only different in a nuanced way. Doug Mehus T·C 19:45, 6 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.

Category:Transfeminine male actors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Way too specific of a category. Only two people fall in the category, and it's extremely debatable if they even qualify for it as they have not identified as "transfemininie male". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMcCandlish. BLP problem. buidhe 21:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this appears to be PoV-pushing OR, and a BLP problem, too. Plus WP:SMALLCAT. It's not clear this phrase means anything except to one person; it appears to be an attempt to adjectivize transwoman as transfeminine, then tack on male to reinforce what their sex assignment at birth was, which would be offensive to most transgender people (and many others). If that's what it means, then its hard to distinguish this from trolling. If that's not what it means, then it's too confusing to use as a category name anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SMcCandlish. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish. –Fredddie™ 05:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing category name with WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_5&oldid=955621419"