Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Category:Utopists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Utopists

Category:Optical wireless communication[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#Category:Optical wireless communication

Category:Optical connectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 19#Category:Optical connectors

Category:Optical signal connectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Category:Optical signal connectors

Category:Recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta (1944–1989) & Category:Recipients of the Virtuti Militari (1943–1989)[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. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

Instead of having seperate category for reciepients during the time frame of 1944 to 1989, I think it would be better if we could just merge it with the main category of the award reciepients. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per OCAWARD. There may be a case for listifying them, as we often do with award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Here we go again with the deleting categories for significant awards. No good reason for it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (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:Jamaican girl groups[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Jamaican girl groups

Safavid governors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Safavid governors

Category:Films set in Autumn[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. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure deletion is really the best option here, but I have concerns that this category is going to become a catch-all for any film that has any sequences set during Autumn, in other words, films for which the season is not a defining category. I note that Planes, Trains and Automobiles was added to this category, an example where I feel that what's relevant is that the film is set around Thanksgiving, not Autumn in general. Perhaps all that's needed is a statement that this category is only to be applied when the season is especially significant, but I still have concerns that well-meaning editors will apply it indiscriminately. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It certainly is the best option because it will be used subjectively and will end up containing any film in which a leaf is seen falling from a tree or in which a character in the springtime talks about what they be will be doing come autumn or fall. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will admit that there do exist a small selection of films where being set in autumn is actually a central theme of the film in and of itself, but having a category for them is indeed liable to just collect any and all films that just happen to have changing or falling leaves in them just by virtue of fall being when they were filmed, or that happen to mention a September, October or November date in the script, even if fall has no significant role in the story itself. What's significant about Planes, Trains and Automobiles is the Thanksgiving setting specifically, not autumn in general. It is not useful, as a rule, to categorize films by what individual season they're purportedly set in. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Those aren't pillows! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearcat's argument have convinced me. If there are films where the autumn setting is central to the film, then this is a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but purge and rename to Category:Films about Autumn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), keeping only those where autumn is central to the film. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dimadick. --Just N. (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete per nom, or purge and rename per Grutness. By the way, shouldn't the latter become autumn in lower case? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a category that ought to contain more than a quarter of all films made. This is not a useful category.--Srleffler (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More than a quarter", when a lot of films aren't set in any specific season? (what season is Star Wars set in?) Grutness...wha? 22:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; neutral on a new Category:Films about autumn (lowercase "autumn" preferably) if there are enough valid entries for that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:23, 15 October 2021 (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:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified

Category:High school football competitions in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:High school football competitions in the United States

Category:Iranian vocalists[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/merge per nom. – Fayenatic London 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No obvious difference. I dont think there are any other vocalist categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Makes sense. Best solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge both to Category:Iranian singers. The genre appears to be Iranian music, sometimes with cross-over to western classical or pop music. I expected the first of these to be about Iranians singing (western) classical music, but sampling content suggests this is not so. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Iranians have their own sort of classical music. Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 10 October 2021 (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:Male superheroes[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. The applicable global consensus is at WP:EGRS (specifically WP:CATGENDER) and WP:OVERCAT (specifically WP:NONDEF and WP:OCEGRS), which, summed up, state that an intersection category, such as "gender + superhero" (e.g., Category:Male superheroes), should only exist if, according to WP:RS, the intersection is a "defining characteristic" of the article subject. There was no consensus reached in this discussion as to whether any of these category intersections were defining.
Some editors pointed to the sources compiled at Superhero#Female superheroes and villains as establishing that "female + superhero" was a defining intersection per RS. Editors in favor of deleting or merging these categories did not address these sources, e.g. with a source analysis evaluating specific sources, or with any counterarguments for why these sources do not establish a defining intersection. This, alone, might be enough to close the CFD of Category:Female superheroes as "keep".
However, editors by and large did not address whether these sources establish that being a female superhero is defining for every female superhero or only some female superheroes, e.g. the specific publishers' sub-categories (Marvel Comics female superheroes, DC Comics female superheroes, etc.). Also unaddressed was whether the sources establish that "gender + superhero" was defining generally, or only specifically "female + superhero", e.g. whether the RSes that putatively establish "female + superhero" as defining also establish "male + superhero" (or other genders) as defining. There was little or no discussion about whether one group of gender categories should be treated differently than another. In other words: there was little or no discussion about splitting up this bundled nomination and treating the individual categories differently.
As such, even though the argument that female+superhero was a defining intersection was not rebutted, there was no consensus reached about what that means, e.g. does that mean keep Category:Female superheroes and delete the rest (as one editor suggested), or keep all the female categories and merge/delete the rest, or something else. No prejudice to a renomination, but I suggest editors consider whether they want to have a more general discussion about sub-categorizing superheroes (or fictional characters generally) by gender (which should not be done via CFD, but probably via RFC at some appropriate page), or whether they want to discuss merging/deleting these categories specifically, or just some subset of these categories (in which case a new CFD should be more specific about merge targets, and also address any sources that editors point to as establishing defining intersections, or, if the argument is that they should be deleted and not merged, explain why). (non-admin closure) Levivich 22:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. For most of these characters, being male or female is not a defining trait; being a superhero is. There is already a category without the unnecessary and reductive gender classification. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to relevant gender-free superheroes categories, per NONDEF. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gender is defining for characters, as it is for people. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to gender-neutral parent categories as unrelated intersections, unless there is evidence that male or female superheroes are a notable topic in their own right (as a criterion of the WP:OCEGRS guideline). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge all. Not a defining trait nor a relevant way to separate out superheroes. For the superheroes directly involved with gender issues, the appropriate categories on those can be included. SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notable distinctions, as documented e.g. at Superhero#Female superheroes and villains. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should either remove all gender-specific categories of people, or create gender-specific subcategories for all "people" categories. We should not be discussing superhero categories separately from the larger question.--Srleffler (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per No Great Shaker. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. For the zillionth time, delete all of these examples of overcategorization. Upmerge would be okay. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's got to be a more useful way to sub-categorise superheroes than by gender. Genuinely I could just start listing some off. Gender is to some extent important, in that women are under-represented in fiction and especially as main characters, but this way of doing it still isn't useful or meaningful. An actually helpful one would be having superheroes that are central characters with non-diffusing subcat of women superheroes that are central characters. But that's because it's specific to an encyclopaedic theme of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Female superheroes, delete the rest. This particular category has an argument for actually being a defining intersection, per Superhero#Female superheroes and villains, and it should probably converted to a non-diffusing subcat. I do not believe the rest pass WP:OCEGRS. bibliomaniac15 20:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given two facts – that (i) the superheroes categories are diffusing sub-categories of the characters categories, e.g. Category:Marvel Comics male superheroes is a subcat of Category:Marvel Comics male characters, and (ii) the gendered parent categories for characters have not been nominated – it would make no sense to upmerge only to ungendered Superheroes and not also to female/male characters. Such a one-sided upmerge would remove a great many important characters from the gendered character hierarchies. Note that the parent hierarchies for female/male characters are well-structured all the way up to Category:Fictional characters by gender. It would be invidious to remove only superheroes from those parents. So, if these gendered superhero categories are not kept, then they must be double-upmerged also to the parent for male/female characters. Alternatively, this set could be relisted with appropriate sets of characters categories by gender and franchise. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 14 November 2021 (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:Psychiatric disease and disorder templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Category:Psychiatric disease and disorder templates

Category:Buildings and structures in the Canton of Bern[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two redundant categories exist with differing capitalization. Gjs238 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2021 (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:Psychiatric instruments: geriatric psychiatry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete' per WP:OVERLAPCAT, all articles in the category save one are also in Category:Psychiatric instruments: cognitive impairment and dementia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_10&oldid=1073193226"