Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25

Category:Downtown campuses

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 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Downtown campuses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't have a strong view on this but I thought I'd throw this newly-created category open for discussion. Is this WP:DEFINING enough to justify being a category? We've had Category:Satellite campuses since 2012. And is there a more WP:ENGVAR-neutral name for it? Le Deluge (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is based on a trivial distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. How close to the city centre qualifies as "downtown"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Satellite campuses. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not sound right. A downtown campus may also be the main campus rather than a satellite campus. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 30 January 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:Pedagogues

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 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pedagogues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Educationalists, which seems adequately categorised. Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Educationalists tends to refer to theorists, perhaps also academics training teachers. The one parent Category:Educators has a headnote drawing a distinction between it and Category:Educational theorists. I would have expected Pedagogue to be a redirect to teacher, but in fact the target is Pedogogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 28 January 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:Finnish teachers

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) DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Finnish teachers to Category:Finnish schoolteachers

Nominator's rationale: Doesnt appear to be any intended distinction Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The two categories have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per Dimadick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Both articles in the subject fit well into the target. However there will also be those who teach Finnish as a foreign language, which would be a different category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if we have any articles about people who teach Finnish as a foreign language, but categories like Category:English teachers are problematically ambiguous and I'd like to think of a way of reducing the ambiguity. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 30 January 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:Dúnedain of the North

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) DannyS712 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Dúnedain of the North to Category:Middle-earth Dúnedain

Nominator's rationale: Why do we have a subcategory that only contains one article? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. (PS: It'd be much too much of an in-joke to say "merge to Cat:Edáinburgh" - I live in Dunedin, the "Edinburgh of the South") Grutness...wha? 02:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too small, with no potential for growth. Hog Farm (talk) 21:14, 28 January 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:Bagmati Zone geography stubs

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. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bagmati Zone geography stubs to Category:Bagmati Pradesh geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Zones have been superseded by provinces; the entire area of the Bagmati Zone is now part of Bagmati Pradesh. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 19:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 26 January 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:Modern Turkic states

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 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Modern Turkic states to Category:Member states of the Turkic Council

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, there is currently no objective criterion to determine whether a state should be in this category or not. By turning this into a membership category (comparable to Category:Member states of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie) an objective criterion is created. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support we are not taking positions on what makes a state "Turkic". If having the majority of the people more fluent in a Turkic language than a non-Turkic one, then Kazakhstan is probably out. If you include states with large minorities in order to get Kazakhstan back in, we then would have to also add Russia, Iran, China, Mongolia, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria etc which would obviously be a recipe for edit warring. Thus the only objective criterion is the political one.--Calthinus (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure -- There is a subcat Category:Autonomous Turkic states which covers a number of polities in Russia. I would suggest that the category's scope should be states (not countries) where a Turkic Language is a major one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subcat should be moved to Category:Turkic states while purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The proposed name is more defining than the current one. Place Clichy (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would move Turkmenistan into the parent rather than removing it from the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 25 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:Immigration detention centres and prisons in Australia

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons of Australia. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons in Australia to Category:Australian immigration detention centres and prisons

Nominator's rationale: As matter of policy some of these are not in Australia. Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, or alternatively Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons of Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "of" is a better option. Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons of Australia. This is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native Hawaiian people of Portuguese descent

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) DannyS712 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Native Hawaiian people of Portuguese descent to Category:people of Portuguese descent

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. And a contradiction in terms. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, but to Category:Hawaii people of Portuguese descent‎. Note that there is also a sibling Category:Native Hawaiian people of Filipino descent‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The one person in the category is 50% native. I found one in the target which was 25% native. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 28 January 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:Wikipedia help overviews

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) 16:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia help overviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is an arbitrary grouping of various help, policy, and guidelines pages and categories of those. There are quite a number of different ways in which such pages are already grouped and presented to users including, but not limited to, Help:Contents (the main help page, available from the side bar), Template:Basic information (navbox, placed on some of the top-level Help and Project namespace pages), and Category:Wikipedia directories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add oddly named Category:Wikipedia community sites for inclusion with same rationale and support deletion. Not sure the meaning of "community sites" in this context.--Moxy 🍁 05:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedia help, the concept of "overview" is subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcocapelle, I haven't checked all categories and pages in Category:Wikipedia help overviews, but I would guess that all of them are already in the category tree of Category:Wikipedia help. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds reasonable. You might check a sample and if you are right we can simply delete instead of merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcocapelle, I've checked ten pages, and all ten are already categorized under Category:Wikipedia help. Finding of User:Fayenatic london below further improves on this argument. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then delete indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the category's scope and role is based on a basic concept of which help articles are most helpful, as overviews or pathways to broad topical areas within the general category of help articles at WIkipedia. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the problem of subjectivity of what an "overview" is. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all help sub-categories are somewhat subjective, in deciding which articles are “article elements help,” text help, etc etc. the concept of “overview” is clear enough; all one needs is the dictionary definition for that word. This category is simply meant to help others. Let’s keep it. The scope and shape of the category can always be modified or tweaked, based on whichever articles we editors as a community decide to include there. Thanks.—Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the dictionary will help editors to decide whether a page belongs in this category or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. The arguments that this category is subjective and unnecessary are stronger. The category creator's view that the concept of “overview” is clear enough [to categorize by] is wrong. DexDor^(talk) 07:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. There are many categories at Wikipedia which incorporate some type of concept in their name. the usage and scope of a category develops based on how the the category itself is utilized in practical terms, i.e. by the dozens of editors who edit and watch the articles contained in this category. In this case, this category is of practical value, as it compiles various central help articles which can help new editors to find more advanced guidelines and help articles. --Sm8900 (talk)

Central is just as subjective as overview. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Category:Wikipedia help subjective delineation that doesn't clarify anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than merge. This new category seems only to have been added to pages, rather than replacing previous categories on the page, so there should be no need to merge. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out, our category system happens to include these categories, as well: . so it seems to me like our category system already encompasses a variety of differing approaches, to similar or overlapping topics. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Some of the categories you listed (e.g. Category:Wikipedia essays about lists) are quite precise about what pages they are for. DexDor^(talk) 06:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not enough of a category expert to say whether this is a category we should keep or delete, but I fully support reducing the redundancy of the overview help categories and pages. Contributors to this discussion may also be interested in the proposals to redirect WP:Introduction and the welcoming committee intro page. Sdkb (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than merge. This seems to be a category whose contents are intuitive only to its creator. Oculi (talk) 11:41, 18 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:Fishing television channels

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fishing television channels to Category:Fishing

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in it. Also, add the article Chasse et Pêche to Category:Sports television networks; the other article is already in Category:Sports television networks in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indifferent, but for the record I have added the 2 member pages to Category:Hunting in popular culture, as they are about hunting as well as fishing. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 27 January 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:User-created templates

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) 23:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:User-created templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All templates are technically "User-created". The description makes it seem that it is some non-defining subcategory of Category: User namespace templates: Category for User-created templates. Any templates in this category were placed here because they were already part of Category: User namespace templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the category may be renamed to something clearer, e.g. Category:Personal user templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to imagine what this is supposed to mean. If it really means "user-created templates" then it is pointless, as all templates are User-created. (And there's nothing "technical" about that: they just are user-created.) If it doesn't mean that then what does it mean? The creator of Category:User-created templates has put a notice on the category page saying "Any templates in this category were placed here because they were already part of Category: User namespace templates". Does that mean that it is actually intended to be a duplicate of Category:User namespace templates? If not, in what way is it intended to differ, and what additional purpose is it intended to serve? Unless good answers to those two questions can be provided, this seems to be a pointless fork of an existing category, with no useful purpose. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am changing my vote on this, to Neutral. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC) hi there, folks. okay, lots to cover here. basically I created this category for templates that are sub-pages for individual editor's user pages; so for example, the category's is meant for items with names like "User:FisherQueen/Fq-undelete". so that's the reason for the category and its scope. however, the point above about the category name is very perceptive. I actually hadn't thought of that. I appreciate your point on that, andrybak. thanks! :okay, so please feel free to let me know what might be a good name for this. I'm trying to think about options. I realize Category:User page templates would not work; that category already exists, and it is for templates that are used on user pages. hm, what else? --Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe: category: templates established as user subpages? that's just a draft idea; I'm not sure what nomenclature would actually be formally viable here. Marcocapelle, I appreciate your very-helpful note above. exactly my thinking as well. so, everyone, please feel free to let me know any ideas or options for renaming this. I'm open to any ideas. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sm8900: what's the purpose of such category of all "templates", which are sub-pages in User namespace? Do you plan, for example, to include in this category all templates which are in Category:Userboxes, which happen to be a sub-page of a user page? At the moment there are several such pages in the category: {{User:Diriector Doc/Ubx/No WikiProject}}, {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Nobel Prize}}, {{User:Jenolen/Userboxes/User no GFDL}}, {{User:One/Userboxes/User nobelprize}}, and {{User:Timeshifter/Userboxes/Editor on strike}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi Andrybak. ok, well yes , I was planning to include those as well. I'm open to any input, comments, technical details, etc, that you wish to share. I appreciate your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this category would lose its usefulness if it mixed up (hundreds of) userboxes with the (relatively few) message templates. How about removing userboxes, and renaming to Category:Personal message templates? – Fayenatic London 22:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with comment above.' @Fayenatic london: that sounds totally fine. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but looking at more of the content, not many are message templates after all. We can still do the rename, but should then remove the user boxes, and move the sundry others up to Category:User namespace templates. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all templates are user-created. On the odd chance a bot created a template, it's not important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has failed to provide any reasonable explanation of how this categorization would benefit wp. DexDor^(talk) 07:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category was added to the contents without removing existing categories, so no merge is required. I have created Category:Personal message templates as suggested above. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 28 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:Immigration incidents

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 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Immigration incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Completely undefined. Better dispersed to the categories of the countries involved (all the articles are already in appropriate categories). If it included all "Immigration incidents" it would have thousands of articles. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 25 January 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:Immigration by continent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 9#Category:Immigration by continent

Cathedrals in Jerusalem

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, a total of 8 articles in 4 categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Such micro-categorisation only leads to sectarian conflicts and one-upmanship. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Yes, these failsWP:SMALLCAT, but that's a guideline, and all guidelines are subject to some exceptions. In this case, replacing one category with four seems unhelpful to both maintenance and navigation, so I prefer to treat this as a useful exception which aids both maintenance and navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one article, even after this merge these articles will not be in an awful lot of categories. Besides some of the articles are in some parent's categories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Roman Catholic cathedrals in (country) usually contains only pages, not sub-categories by city. Likewise, we have Category:Cathedrals by city, but it is generally not sub-carted by denomination. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 25 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.

Religion and sexuality

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/rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Religion and sexual orientation to Category:LGBT and religion
Propose merging Category:Christianity and sexual orientation to Category:LGBT topics and Christianity
Propose merging Category:Christian denominational positions on homosexuality to Category:LGBT topics and Christianity
Propose merging Category:Homosexuality and Catholicism to Category:LGBT topics and Catholicism
Propose merging Category:Homosexuality and Protestantism to Category:LGBT topics and Protestantism
Propose merging Category:Homosexuality and Mormonism to Category:LGBT and Mormonism
Propose renaming Category:Homosexuality and Anglicanism to Category:LGBT topics and Anglicanism
Propose renaming Category:Homosexuality and Eastern Orthodoxy to Category:LGBT topics and Eastern Orthodoxy
Propose renaming Category:Homosexuality and Lutheranism to Category:LGBT topics and Lutheranism added February 28
Propose renaming Category:Homosexuality and Baptist churches to Category:LGBT topics and Baptist churches added February 28

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, there is so little content specifically on religion and transgender topics (see Category:Transgender topics and religion) or specifically on religion and bisexuality, that in the above cases it does not make much sense to have an LGBT and a homosexuality category on top of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The multitudinous slicing of LGBT categories is tiresome to behold and tedious to maintain. I doubt that the nom would agree with these sentiments; nevertheless the proposal is to be welcomed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. LGBT is a modern term not fitting to any articles descripting centuries-old events that may be categorized hereunder.--Darwinek (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality is also a modern term, at least it is in the context of centuries-old. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection but the merged Category:LGBT and religion should then become a sub-cat of to Category:Sexuality and religion as well as of their common parent to Category:Gender and religion.

Mormonism isn't tagged. I suggest relisting and adding the siblings for Lutherans and Baptists. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 28 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:Categories by psychoactive drug

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories by psychoactive drug to Category:Individual psychoactive drugs

Nominator's rationale: the current title suggests that this is a hypercategory by parameter (comparable to e.g. Category:Categories by country), but that is actually not the case for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – good catch, Marcocapelle. The sub-cats are for individual drugs compared to e.g. the siblings by chemical class or psychological effect. – Fayenatic London 17:19, 24 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:Suraiya

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily converted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Suraiya to article Suraiya (film)

Nominator's rationale: Article apparently created in category space in error; requesting conversion to article, with no opinion on notability of subject. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:50, 25 January 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:Middle-earth deities

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth deities to Category:Middle-earth Ainur

Nominator's rationale: Okay, so this will seem a bit granular to those not familiar with Tolkien's works, but the articles and subcats in this category are not deities in the sense that they never receive worship. The figures in this category are more what would be referred to as angels and demons in Abrahamic religions, so I feel like it would be better to use Tolkien's term of "Ainur." Hog Farm (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, or merge to Category:Fictional deities and spirits and Category:Middle-earth races as it is a very small category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second merge target should change to Category:Middle-earth characters per comment below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Please no. Just delete. The category members are already in {[:Category:Middle-earth characters]]. ~~I suppose I wouldn't strongly oppose merging to Category:Fictional deities and spirits, as that seems a bit more neutral, but, still not great.~~ (And no, they are not "races".) - jc37 21:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a closer look at the category structure. Rename to Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. - jc37 21:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That, or simply Category:Ainur (without Middle-earth), are better renaming alternatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - the article is Ainur (Middle-earth) so I would suggest Category:Ainur (Middle-earth). Oculi (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could weakly support that, as it at least removes much of the connotative adjective issue with the nom's proposed target. These waters just start to get a bit troublesome grouping them all as Ainur. Some of the spirits (such as Balrogs), were merely noted by the elves as "presumed" to be former maia. Tolkien was indeterminate on such things intentionally, often showing that there were many different powers in the world, and not all easily quantified. Ungoliant for another example. I still think the best answer is to Rename to Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. - jc37 19:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that jc37 can be relied upon, so I can support Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. This is a good solution. Ainur is obscure and the relationship between various kinds of being with extraordinary powers is not always clear. Deity suggests worship, but many of them were not worshipped. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. Although I suggested using "Ainur" for this category in another recent CFD, the more generic title (i) is more easily understood, (ii) matches the parent category, and (iii) allows certain characters to be added whose nature is not clear (Tom Bombadil, Ungoliant). – Fayenatic London 08:36, 1 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.