Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:People associated with the 2020 United States presidential election[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. MER-C 17:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is really vague, and not defining in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, subjective, and see WP:OCASSOC, but also this discussion should involve the other "people associated with" categories at Category:People associated with United States presidential elections. These vague, subjective wastebasket categories are only relevant to trivia hounds and prone to attract irrelevant entries. Unambiguous, clearly demarcated categories like Category:2004 United States presidential candidates are fine. Vague, open-ended "associated" people might include anyone from debate moderators, judges, electoral college members, celebrities, protesters, to the 50 Secretaries of State who each certifies the election for their respective state. A well-written article is the place to name-drop those who are actually relevant to the respective elections, not frivolous categories. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete too vague. We no doubt have a candidates page already. I do not think we need much else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (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 who follow a straight edge lifestyle[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. MER-C 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Verifiable but non-defining category per WP:CATDEF. Basically punk rock trivia of interest primarily to those who follow the straight edge lifestyle. The fact that a few people are strongly associated with straight edge does not make it broadly defining, similar to Category:Vegans. Note: this category was kept after limited discussion in 2018 (2 users advocating keep, 3 advocating deletion). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is effectively all those who are not LGBT, which must be 90-95% of the world (or higher). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I think you must have misread the category... being "straight edge" has nothing to do with being "straight" or heterosexual. Richard3120 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the category has been listed for just over a year at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Other, for a volunteer to purge it and add a restrictive definition to the category page. This has not yet been done. However, it would not be the only case to wait a long time on that page, and yet be satisfactorily implemented in the end. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TM, Lugnuts, DexDor, Carlossuarez46, and Ojo del tigre: pinging the discussants of the previous discussion. Note that I have closed the previous discussion. Procedural recommendation in case the previous closure is not overturned by this new discussion: we may put a time limit on having it implemented, e.g. six months after closure of this discussion (i.e. if nothing happened after six months, delete the category without further discussion, just like with draft articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous CFD. This is a non-defining characteristic of e.g. Ben Myers. We don't categorize people by, for example, how (non)promiscuous people are, what foods they prefer etc. DexDor (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, requires editors to make a value judgement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Deleted my comment, misunderstood. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2019 (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:Intersectional LGBT topics[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 09:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear why some things (e.g. Category:LGBT youth and Category:LGBT BDSM) are in this category and other things (e.g. Category:LGBT parenting and Category:LGBT fiction) are not. We don't normally use the word "topics" in category names. DexDor (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a better categorization scheme than currently, but is probably best done by creating a new category rather than by renaming (e.g. does the BDSM category belong in society?). DexDor (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Generally "intersectional" things are where multiple identities are combined, like being gay and black. This category generalized that to "LGBT and X" where X is not necessarily an identity...so yeah, that's pretty much the same thing as Category:LGBT minus a few core articles, so that's not useful. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is about Intersectionality, Category:Intersectionality, not about intersections of categories. Oculi (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category is intended to be about intersectional feminism then it probably needs a clearer name and different content (e.g. not the BDSM subcat) - so best to delete (merge) this category and if necessary create a new category (e.g. under Category:LGBT and feminism and Category:Intersectional feminism). DexDor (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DexDor: It appears invidious to discuss this category without also considering its siblings Category:Intersectional racial topics‎, Category:Intersectional religious topics‎ & Category:Intersectional social class topics‎. May I suggest that you withdraw this CFD and start a new combined discussion on all four, if you find that appropriate? – Fayenatic London 21:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word "invidious" (meaning unfairly discriminating) is hardly appropriate here (who am I being unfair to?); I'm just proposing an improvement to the category structure. Many (in fact most) categories don't have a "Intersectional ... topics" subcategory so was the editor who created this LGBT category (without creating corresponding categories for art, science etc) being invidious?
      • The relationship of this category with feminism categories is a confused mess and I'm not sure it's exactly the same confused mess for the sibling categories so there's a potential TRAINWRECK.
      • Removing (by merge) this category would (IMO) be an improvement to the categorization structure. Removing (again, probably by merge) the sibling categories may well also be an improvement. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant that it would be invidious concerning Category:Intersectionality to pick off just one of four comparable sub-cats. I'm neither supporting nor opposing removing all four together, just suggesting that it would be better to consider them en bloc. Sometimes we relist and add more categories to a nomination; however, as the intention of the category has been clarified in the course of this discussion, it would be better to start afresh with a rationale that recognises and addresses it. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: it is completely understandable what you are after, but on the other hand we will also need to discuss the destination of the content of each of the four categories in detail, which is not an easy job if done in conjunction. For this one there is some room for purging and renaming (although I am not strongly against merging), but for Category:Intersectional religious topics‎ I would readily support purge and upmerge to Category:Religion and society. This may be different for each of the four. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle and DexDor: This discussion is weakened by the fact that we no longer have an article about the broad topic of intersectionality. A year ago, that's what the article Intersectionality was; but, as recognised by DexDor in this edit, that main article is now about intersectional feminism. It would probably be helpful to move it to that name and re-create a page about intersectionality.
    • The relevance of the above to this CFD is that it seems to be proposed that the hierarchy Category:Intersectionality be dismantled, or at least emptied of most of its current contents. I agree that some pruning may be appropriate, but am currently inclined to see it as largely valid and useful for navigating between related sub-topics. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a big difference between intersectionality as an academic topic as defined by either version of the article, and intersectionality as it is currently used in these categories (namely as a loose collection of subcategories of the format Category:X and Y). If we would take the former as our point of departure, we should populate the intersectionality categories almost from scratch and it is uncertain whether there is enough content to populate them at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Marcocapelle; it's not clear that the Intersectional...topics categories are anything to do with sociological theories called "intersectionality". DexDor (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Would you mind providing further comments on the previous two reactions? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my opposition to the proposal. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only thing this will accomplish is overflod the main LGBT category. Can't see how this would possibly be helpful. Intersectionallity is a very real thing.★Trekker (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will be some 40 subcategories in total. Nothing to be overflod. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the nom and Beland. We don't need a separate category for this LGBT sub-topic and a merge will not overflood the parent category. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this category (and other intersectional ones for racial, religious, social class topics) years ago, and at the time the idea was for them to be analogous to the already-existing "Intersectional feminism" category, and accordingly, to be focussed on subcategories/articles that had to do with the intersection of LGBT with other identities (women/feminism, racial/ethnic/religious minorities etc.), but I see that the category has filled up with many other things in the intervening years. I have just done some pruning (moving subcats/pages to the parent LGBT category) which might improve the category's function, but I don't mind if the community decides that it should be deleted (ditto for the other "intersectional" ones by the way).--Greenwoodtree 13:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Intersectional feminism is a specific thing, but afaik Intersectional LGBTism(?) or LGBT intersectionality(?) isn't. DexDor (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no clear definition of what goes here and what does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Even though it's now well defined after Greenwoodtree's cleanup and many of the arguments for deletion are no longer aplicable due to this, I still find Beland's argument that it's not useful for navigation convincing enough to support a merger anyway. I've properly categorized all members of the category properly as a non-diffusing cat making it just a narrower duplicate of the main category. I see no reason that this specific subset should warrant a category since readers are much more likley to be looking for one of its subcategories than the container. --Trialpears (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2019 (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:Cars powered by rear-mounted 5-cylinder engines[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. Editors are welcome to make a broader nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALL, WP:NARROWCAT - Narrow intersection, I doubt there are (m)any other cars fitting this category. Vossanova o< 18:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question', @Vossanova: isn't it odd to have 4- and 6-cylinder engine categories, but not a 5-cylinder engine category? Why not nominate 4 and 6 as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Good point. I nominated 5-cylinder first due to the scarcity of such cars, but I'm okay with letting this proposal go and including the rest in a new one. --Vossanova o< 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge if not kept, rather than delete, there is no reason to remove the car from the parent hierarchies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC) stricken after comment further below Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it's so small. Although there were only a handful of these, SMALLCAT shouldn't be applied because it's one of a rational set of obvious combinations, rather than just an arbitrary and insignificant collection. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:57, 9 June 2019 (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:Descendants of Qian Liu[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 18:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, large overlapping scope. I would not mind renaming the target to Category:Qian family by the way. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose completely different concepts. There are maybe a million people claiming ancestry from Qian Liu, the famous founder of the Wuyue Kingdom (including a majority of people surnamed Qian/Tsien), while Tsien family is about the immediate family of Qian Xuesen. I wouldn't object to deleting Category:Tsien family, though, as it's a SMALLCAT. -Zanhe (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Qian Liu lived more than 1,000 years ago, and his descendants (real or claimed) number in the millions (Qian is the 96th largest surname in China shared by 2.2 million people today). Who would call millions of people who lived over a timespan of over a millennium a single family? -Zanhe (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not really answer the question. I meant, why should the Tsien family category only be about the immediate family of Qian Xuesen and not about the immediate family of anyone else in Category:Descendants of Qian Liu? That is pretty arbitrary, isn't it? In addition I start wondering, based on your comment, if descendant of Qian Liu is a defining characteristic at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Qian Xuesen and his relatives are a particularly well known family of distinguished scientists (analogous to Category:Curie family), and they romanized their surname as "Tsien" instead of the standard Qian (or Ch'ien), although Qian Xuesen's own name is now commonly romanized in standard pinyin after he returned to China. -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the number of actually notable descendants may only be a few hundred or thousand at most. I'm a bit ambivalent about this category. A lot of descendants are claimed and hard to verify. Although many Chinese clans maintain their family trees that record male ancestors for thousands of years, their historical reliability is still hotly debated and researched by scholars. The most neutral would be to categorize Chinese people by their surname (Qian in this case) as on Chinese wikipedia, but it's not done on English wikipedia as surnames do not carry as much historical and cultural significance in the West. -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:V. This has the potential to become a de facto surname category based on people's belief that they are descended from someone of the same name, per Qian Liu#Descendants. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: As I said above, keep the categories or delete one or both of them, but merging makes no sense, as they're very different concepts. It's ridiculous to merge a bunch of people who lived 1,000 years ago into a close-knit modern family. -Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option B/Delete as Secondary Choice It appears that a merge is not gaining consensus so, if I have to cheese between keep or delete I definitely favor deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2019 (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 by cultural region in Latvia[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 as nominated. MER-C 09:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: complete overlap. This subcategory is the only thing in People by region in Latvia Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Category:People by Baltic province. The difficulty is that early modern boundaries in the three Baltic republics do not fit the present ones at all well. IN the days of the Swedish Empire they referred to "East Sea" provinces, East Sea being what we call Baltic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the nom. This subcategory is the only thing in People by region in Latvia category, so it is a needless layer in this small categorization tree. There is no benefit. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (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:Easter traditions[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 necessary. MER-C 09:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this under Category:Autumn traditions which seems wrong. For the Northern hemisphere Easter is in the spring, but in the fall in the Southern hemisphere. This whole category should go somewhere season neutral. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for CfD, two of the three parents are questionable but there is nothing wrong with the category itself. I have reparented it to Category:Seasonal traditions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not sure where to raise the error so Cats for discussion seemed the best place. Thanks for the quick fix. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are several mentions on main article Easter and associated articles linking it to the appearance of spring (that is, in the Northern Hemisphere). It is even more specific at Ecclesiastical full moon#Paschal full moon: the paschal full moon refers to the ecclesiastical full moon of the northern spring used in the determination of the date of Easter. [...] The date of Easter is determined as the first Sunday after the "paschal full moon" that falls on or after March 21 (the ecclesiastical fixed date for the Spring Equinox; the actual Equinox can fall on March 19, 20 or 21). Easter#Non-observing Christian groups goes as far as writing that some see Easter as originating in a pagan spring festival taken over by the "Roman" Catholic Church. Therefore parenting Category:Easter traditions to Category:Spring traditions seems legitimate to me. Sorry for our Australian brothers, but it seems that the Church fathers who placed Easter in the spring had a very vague notion of seasons in the Southern Hemisphere, although it does fall in autumn there today. Place Clichy (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The traditions in this category are largely non-religious traditions so it is questionable whether the religious origin of Easter is relevant in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely, it's the pagan origins of the religious festival of Easter that are discussed... are the non-religious traditions originating in the non-religious origins of the tradition? The snake is biting its tail... Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite, because pagan is also religious. Perhaps I should have said secular instead of non-religious, but to me that is synonymous. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close -- This is not a CFD issue and the issue raised has now been dealt with. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2019 (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.

Imperators totius Hispaniae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 21#Imperators totius Hispaniae

Suebian kings of Galicia‎[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. MER-C 09:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, unnecessary long category names, while the main article is simply at Kingdom of the Suebi. Besides "of Galicia" is slightly confusing since the kingdom also covered Lusitania (Portugal) most of the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to what article Kingdom of Galicia suggests, the two kingdoms are entirely unrelated, in time (more than 300 years between them) and in context ("king of Galicia" was usually a mere additional title of the king of León/Castile while only occasionally it was a matter of temporarily splitting the kingdom of León between brothers of the previous king) and in geography (e.g. Braga was the capital of the kingdom of the Suebi, while in the second stage it became the capital of the county of Portugal). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, though a bit wieldy to have both "monarchs" and "kingdom" in one category title. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2019 (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:Political correctness[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: do not simply delete; a further nomination is needed to seek consensus on what should replace it. In case it helps, I have listed the current contents at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated for deletion in 2005: the decision then was delete. It has climbed back out of the crypt.

This is unambiguously a pejorative, subjective and POV categorisation. It invites editors to regard their own world view as primary and to insult those who do not share it. It is impossible to apply this category objectively to any topic. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- As the nominator points out, this is a category almost calculated to arouse partisanship and intrude personal opinions into this project, as the list of items currently in the category demonstrates appallingly well. I will assume good faith on the part of whoever created it, but really... how did this one last so long? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. It shouldn't be a matter of personal opinion whether a given topic has become a controversy related to political correctness. Either some notable commentator has described it as such or they haven't. Sometimes "political correctness" is simple being used as a synonym for the more neutral inclusive language. Some people say "political correctness" always has negative connotations, but supporters and commentators sometimes use the term descriptively without negative connotation. At the very least, if other editors don't like this category name, we should have Category:Inclusive language controversies, which is a subset of political correctness, but is probably 90% of it and is more solidly neutral and clear in scope. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an example. I realise that this is a real world topic and the article political correctness has merit. My concern is POV assignment to articles. As an example, see ongoing discussion at talk:Common Era#Political correctness. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole reason CE exists is as an inclusive alternative to AD, so it seems objectively relevant. If you consider "political correctness" and "inclusive language" to be synonyms, inclusion of this article in this category does not seem POV. I'm not sure calling CE "politically correct" is itself POV; for some people that means "obviously the left taking inclusive language too far" and for others "obviously preferred because it's more inclusive" and their opinion on the matter clearly depends on their POV. But noting the fact that the term generates polarizing opinions is different than saying which of those opinions is correct. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, CE began in Jewish use because Anno Domini [nostrum] – Year of Our sic Lord – was offensive. 'Although we acknowledge the ubiquity of the current calendar era, Jesus was not our lord', merely that it is the era in common use. Thus, for people of other religions and none, it is a way of asserting equal status. It is thus insulting to suggest that, when I use it in articles that I create, I do so out of some desire to be seen to be 'politically correct'. Your suggestion of Category:Inclusive language controversies would be a good one in the case of CE because undoubtedly it has been controversial in some circles.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the history I had in mind; people who felt excluded from the old term came up with a new term that they felt included them as well as everyone else. Not everyone who uses inclusive terminology is making a political statement by doing so, or is even doing so in conscious contrast to another term they simply might not have even heard of. Labeling a term either as "inclusive" or "politically correct" doesn't really say anything about the motivations of the people using them. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like and am content to accept your alternative naming (Category:Inclusive language controversies) proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Krugman, Paul (26 May 2012). "The New Political Correctness". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 February 2013.
  • Keep -- or rename per an alternate proposal to address the concerns raised above, which I will post in a day or two after this CFD has been relisted for further discussion. As for Category:Inclusive language controversies, I certainly have no objection to creating that as a subcategory of this category -- but NOT as a replacement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw As nominator, I would like to withdraw this nomination. I am persuaded by the discussion above that the rename proposal has greater merit and will propose that if this discussion is closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as non-defining and subjective. And I oppose renaming to "Inclusive language controversies" (itself a form of political correctness, no?) for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs)
  • Sorry for the delay. It took a lot longer than I thought it would to look at every article that was listed in the Category. (More on that shortly.)
The reason & goal for renaming in this fashion is to greatly restrict the use of the category such that it will only contain articles that actually include discussion of the topic/subject of "political correctness" in their text -- ideally, in terms of a section devoted to the topic, but also including articles where "political correctness" is discussed or at least referenced here and there in the text. All other articles should be summarily purged from the category.
I was frankly astonished to discover that only a tiny number of articles (aside from the main article) clearly meet these criteria. Linguistic prescription and Microaggression (which I added) both have sections; and there are several brief mentions in Cosmic Trigger III: My Life After Death (a book in which "political correctness" is apparently a significant focus). The term is only referenced once in each of the following articles: Cisgender, Speech code, and Inclusive language, where it's mentioned in the Intro. I am inclined to leave the latter two in the category on the assumption that they could easily have further material on the topic added to them, probably entire sections. (There are also a few other articles that could possibly be included, but that can be discussed later.)
A final comment: "Political correctness" (of all sorts!) IS a very serious issue/problem, which is in large part why I am arguing for Keeping/Renaming the category as I've outlined. At the same time, I am also very much in agreement with the concerns raised by John Maynard Friedman and others. In short, it is absolutely NOT APPROPRIATE for articles to be listed in the category purely as supposed examples of "political correctness". And make no mistake about it: The vast majority of the articles that have been placed in the category have no mention whatsoever of "political correctness" in their texts. None. If we can agree on a rename along the lines I've suggested, there will of course need to be a head note explaining things in very clear terms. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an obviously POV category, as whether something is "politically correct", suggesting that it is motivated by political reasons and not personal moral ones, is up to your own opinion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse. First of all, thanks to User:Anomalous+0 for raising the distinction between the topic articles versus the example articles. When we move the topic articles to Category:Political communication and the example articles to Category:Controversies (insofar they aren't in that tree already) then this controversial category no longer needs to exist while the articles can still be found in an appropriate place. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? I was hoping for a direct response to my Rename proposal. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "When we move the topic articles to Category:Political communication and the example articles to Category:Controversies". I haven't seen that proposed anywhere. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A number of editors have expressed their concerns against a "political correctness" category. In my view, "political communication" has less of a POV problem for the topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would that address the example I gave - Common Era. It has nothing to do with political communication. But I don't doubt that there are other topics that certainly are political communications, the real-world equivalent of Newspeak – wording that has to be used to comply with the party line. So I propose now that we can't have a simple rename, but that there needs to be distinct new categories that respond to what the article is actually about rather than this lazy name.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was so focused on the content of my Alternate Rename proposal that I neglected to Ping earlier participants to solicit their responses. So here goes: @John Maynard Friedman, Beland, Orange Mike, and Dimadick:. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the RfD have to be closed first and a new Request to Rename opened. My (biased) reading if the discussion above is that there is a consensus to delete as it stands but only if replaced with something better. So what I think we need now is first an invitation to propose alternative names and second to seek consensus on which one (or two) should become the replacement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: per my 'I now propose' note above, we definitely need more than one category to deal with the different aspects that have been lazily rolled into one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least we need two decisions, namely for the topic articles and for the set articles. But it can also be a merge instead of a rename, which is what I have proposed above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time for a straw poll[edit]

I would hate to see this RfD fail on the grounds that a consensus has not emerged on how it should be replaced. So time for a straw poll, colleagues. So @Marcocapelle, Beland, Orangemike, Dimadick, Anomalous+0, Zxcvbnm, Animalparty, and Laurel Lodged:, please indicate Yes/No/DK/DC (don't care) on the following (please add anything I have missed) with a very brief reason (use space above this subsection for longer argument):

What about blackface, removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, cisgender, freedom fries, Snowflake (slang), and speech code? Isn't involvement in a controversy about political correctness (or in neutral terms, inclusivity and expression) what all those have in common? The whole reason that the term common era was created was to be more inclusive; whether you see that as political or not, it's a defining characteristic. -- Beland (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of straw poll and related discussion, proposal[edit]

Hoping to assist the closer and move this discussion towards a conclusion, I suggest this summary:

  1. There is a strong consensus that Category:Political correctness be deleted. This is the same conclusion as reached in 2005.
  2. There is a strong consensus that the topic itself is certainly valid but is not relevant to most of the articles categorised thus, that their categorisation had not been motivated by NPOV. In these cases, the categorisation may be deleted freely.
  3. There is a good consensus that most of the remaining cases can be dispersed to existing categories.
  4. The case for one or two new categories has not achieved consensus but perhaps can be brought up again when the exceptions to item 3 can be brought back for discussion?

Is that a fair summary? If so, may I propose that we (@Marcocapelle, Beland, Orangemike, Dimadick, Anomalous+0, Zxcvbnm, Animalparty, Laurel Lodged, and DexDor:) agree a sharing out of the list of articles that use this category and apply conclusion 2,3 or 4 as appropriate? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we'll have to collect info about political correctness in articles and lists. -- Beland (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I assumed was that we would use the current content of Category: Policital Correctness to produce such a list? (before it gets deleted!). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I could not agree less. Did you actually read my remarks above? I spent several hours combing through every single article, and to repeat what I said: "The vast majority of the articles that have been placed in the category have no mention whatsoever of "political correctness" in their texts. Why on earth would we want to put them in a list? Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomalous+0: I was trying to share the work, not dump it all on one person (me!). I agree completely with your assessment that, for the large majority, the appropriate action is 'remove category'.
Since you have already done the analysis, I for one would be content with you being bold and just removing the category from those articles where its application is evidently pejorative. (I am very willing to share the work on the latter if you can give me a to-do list). But I think we do need list of articles that actually merit being considered for recategorisation. Some will inevitably need discussion as to best category (or even new category). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But before we can take any action, this discussion needs to be formally closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2019 (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:Zoological Societies[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: speedy rename WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious uncontroversial de-capitalization of the second word per parent category, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 9 June 2019 (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/2019_June_9&oldid=913479414"