Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Category:Health and social care trusts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Category:Health and social care trusts

Category:Sustainable fisheries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Category:Sustainable fisheries

Category:Seafood red list[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Category:Seafood red list

Category:Iranian Shia clerics who ceased wearing clerical clothing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Category:Iranian Shia clerics who ceased wearing clerical clothing

Category:Palestinian clergy[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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. The merger proposal should be taken up in a new nomination. MER-C 19:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Only contains Category:Palestinian Christian clergy. Religious leaders of other faiths do not describe their leaders as "clergy". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be proposed as part of a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 16 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:Poisonous fish[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, per precedent. Arguments about lethal dose and what it is poisonous for have not been adequately addressed. MER-C 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How poisonous (hazardous to eat) a species of fish is depends on many factors - e.g. who/what is eating it and what the fish has eaten. Thus, it's subjective and not a good characteristic for categorization. Categories like this also tend to be very incomplete (e.g. of the 3 examples in the Poisonous fish article only 1 is in this category) whilst also being non-defining in some cases (e.g. for Sea lamprey). The Poisonous fish article should be upmerged to here and here. For info: Previous CFDs about categorization by (in)edibility include this and this. Note: there is also Category:Venomous fish. DexDor (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose a fish that is venomous has a poisonous bite. A fish that is poisonous has poisonous flesh. There are plenty of notable fish that are well-known for having inherently poisonous flesh, such as fugu etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(At the risk of getting off topic) It's often the fish's spines (rather than its bite) that's venemous. I don't doubt that some fish are well-known for having poisonous (to humans) flesh (and, of course, that can be explained in the article text), but that doesn't necessarily mean that its a good characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
err, it is a good characteristic to categorize by as many many species of fish are caught and eaten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category has 35 members, counting the main article Poisonous fish, itself. Seems like a perfectly natural category. Zillions of categories would have to be deleted, if the requirement was that membership criteria have to be absolutely black and white. Of course there are gray areas, but that does not mean the categorization done by editors is useless or incorrect. I am only here, by the way, because I created Category:Shotgun houses in Tennessee which is proposed for deletion above on this page. --Doncram (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very subjective. Almost every article in the category is a fish that people eat (usually with no serious consequences), or contains similar toxins to related species that people eat. The largest group of articles in the category is various pufferfishes in the family Tetraodontidae; they are certainly potentially deadly, but are eaten as fugu. The next largest group of articles is various lampreys. Lampreys secrete a toxic mucus, but people do eat them, although usually not unskinned and raw. Not clear that lamprey toxicity to humans is really a concern (although an English king is reputed to have died from eating a "surfeit" of them). Then there's escolar and oilfish; these fairly widely commercially available as food, but some governments advise against consuming them, as they may cause anal leakage. Does "poisonous" mean "edible if prepared very carefully" (pufferfish), "edible if cooked" (lampreys), or "edible, with potentially embarrassing results" (escolar), or does "poisonous" mean "do not eat under any circumstances" (I'd probably put the pufferfish there anyway). Plantdrew (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment poisonous is being assumed to mean "poisonous to humans", is that well-settled so that those which are poisonous to other species are not to be categorized here? Second, many things are poisonous in high enough quantities, is there a well-defined limit here as to what amount merits inclusion and that which doesn't? Third, some fish flesh can be treated (or selectively cut away) to make them edible, do they belong or not. And fourth, many species of fish may not themselves be poisonous (however defined) but the environment from which they are taken make them so, do they belong in this category? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 12 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:Shotgun architecture in Tennessee[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. MER-C 19:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1052 Delmar Avenue, an example of shotgun architecture in the Delmar-Lema Historic District in Memphis, Tennessee
Oppose. I don't care really, but I apparently created the category, and there are now multiple members, and there will be more. Shotgun architecture is perhaps more famously found in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, but there is significant amount of such architecture from somewhat later date in Tennessee: the following article in the Tennessee encyclopedia explains about it: "Shotgun Houses" in Tennessee Encyclopedia. Unlike some other architectural styles, there will not ever be need for categories in most other U.S. states, because it is a regional-only style. Again I don't particularly care if it is deleted only to be re-created later, but also I would rather not run into administrators who get irate later when a deleted category is recreated. There have been lots of past MFDs about architectural categories which I would characterize, to be polite, as uninformed, whose "delete" conclusions were then doggedly defended. Is there any rule of thumb y'all have about what is the "minimum allowable" number of members? Let me know, and I will create that many articles. --Doncram (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 6 articles, but they are all about historic districts with just a mention of shotgun housing. I cant see justification for categories for individual states. Even the main category is weak. Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well the source I provided above actually shows the category _is_ defining; ones in Tennessee are expected to be different. Yes the members are mostly historic districts; these are notable in collections while one stray small house of this type is not likely to be separately notable for NRHP listing. I don't know what "even the main category is weak" means. Shotgun architecture is a thing; it is appropriate to categorize them, and subdividing by Tennessee vs. other does add info. --Doncram (talk) 13:38, 15 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:Disc golf courses in Canada by province[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Category:Disc golf courses in Quebec, no consensus for the rest. MER-C 19:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason why Disc golf courses in Canada should not be subcatted by province. In any case (as Rathfelder has been reminded many times) subcats generally need to be upmerged to all parents rather than just one. 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dual merge, also to Category:Sports venues in Quebec etc. There are very few articles about these courses in Canada (currently 6 in the whole country), that does not require subcatting by province. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This deletion proposal is unwarranted. More articles have since been added to these categories, and many more are about to follow. This categorization is the first step in organizing and expanding articles about disc golf, which have been subpar for far too long. Please convert this drive for deletion into constructive contributing. Deleting people's work as soon as they show initiative is an excellent demotivator and it is counterproductive to making Wikipedia more useful to readers or more welcoming to editors. -Iketsi (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are not about disc golf. They are articles about parks, with, in each case, a mention of the existence of the disc golf course. I dont think they should be merged into Sports venues categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except Quebec, which has enough articles to merit that province having a provincial subcat. The rest do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - relevant articles have since been created and expanded for all four provinces. Iketsi (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are articles about parks which contain a disc golf course, and, in the articles I have examined, say nothing about it. This is promotional categorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 13 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:Kings of Arnor[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 19:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category can only be expanded with redirect pages. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we need to rethink our categories related to Middle-earth. I am coming to think we should just categorize by race, that is elf, man, drarf, hobbit and wizard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply added after relisting) This may be a interesting idea to pursue on in a later stage, but right now Category:Middle-earth rulers still exists and the articles of the nominated category do belong to be merged there. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. This category seems to cross the point where over-granulization of categories becomes an issue. I don't think we need to get this specific for a three-figure category, especially when Arnor doesn't even have an article. Hog Farm (talk) 06:17, 14 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:Male sexual fluidity in film[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 19:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I now propose deletion per discussion below, especially because these are redundant to bisexuality categories. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale: These categories, properly used, are all far too small to justify existence separate from Category:Sexual fluidity, and are original research magnets. All of these were created by User:Satyricon2, and as far as I can tell, they are the only editor to have ever categorized any articles with them. These categories were recently cleaned out, but before that, they were being used to categorize a great many articles that had no verifiable connection to sexual fluidity; thus they constituted original research. WP:CATV requires verifiability for categories.
  • Nearly all of the improper categorizations had to do with misunderstanding what sexual fluidity is. Sexual fluidity does not refer merely to people who are bisexual, not even those bisexuals who are near the ends of the Kinsey scale. Rather, the term is meant to refer to those few people who experience a shift in their sexual orientation over time. The improperly categorized articles said nothing about fluidity, merely bisexuality. Strangely, even though more women than men are thought to experience fluidity, there were far more articles about men than about women in the categories. And of those, a great many were films about supposedly gay men becoming interested in women.
  • Per WP:OVERCAT and WP:NOR, these should all be merged. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The categories are "small" because they were conveniently purged before these nominations went up, probably to ensure greater success in having them deleted. Most of the films do depict and address the topic of sexual fluidity, but the categories were removed on the basis of a purposely narrow definition of sexual fluidity. Is this a political axe to grind from a censorious editor with anti-fluidity and anti-transgender animosities? That's concerning if so. The main reason to delete seems to be "I just don't like it." I'm not only editor to edit these categories, but would not see relevance even if I was. The paucity of articles relating to female sexual fluidity is something that needs to be corrected though by increasing content related to female sexual fluidity and categorizing it appropriately. Satyricon2 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, have we met before? Sheesh. That's a whole lot of aspersions being thrown. And what does transgender have to do with it? I explained above why the categories were "purged". WP:NOR is policy, so no matter how much you think these things involve sexual fluidity, they don't unless sources say so. I'll refrain from speculating on your motives. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sexual fluidity is mentioned explicitly in references on articles that you removed categories from. With other articles, it only takes a 5 minute google search to see that the films have been noted in media for their depictions of sexual fluidity. An attempt could be made to improve the citations and incorporate that content into the articles, but that's not the approach being taken here. Satyricon2 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now you're going through them shoehorning in any source you can find that mentions fluidity for every one you can. This seems to be using Wikipedia as an WP:ADVOCACY WP:SOAPBOX. It states at WP:CATDEFINING that A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Seems pretty dubious to decide in advance that sexual fluidity is a defining characteristic and then dig up some source for it. No, this isn't moving the goalposts because I haven't reverted it. But I am pointing it out, and it shows that these should be merged. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of these films deal with the subject of sexual fluidity. You seemingly removed the categories on the narrow basis that the articles didn't technically, explicitly mention the term "sexual fluidity." Well, I'm saying that the films plainly address the subject, it has been plainly noticed and noted by others that the films address the subject, and there are sources for it. Now that I have shown this, well, the sources aren't good enough, I have an agenda. I don't find it "advocacy" to given citations for the relevant themes you have deemed irrelevant and worthy of omission. You can watch the films, look at the plots and themes, read the reception and reviews of the films, and see that sexual fluidity is a relevant topic. How would relevance be shown in a way that you deem acceptable, if there is in fact a way? When I mentioned "I just don't like it", I was referring to this page. Categories for "sexual fluidity" are just as relevant as categories for homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, etc. Satyricon2 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there is a source, it's good enough for now, but I object to the approach taken, and the issue I raised is still there that this is overcategorization and it lends itself to people putting them on things they don't apply to in good faith. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, how can we distinguish between sexual fluidity and bisexuality? Note that these articles are also categorized in the bisexuality tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good question. I wouldn't say that "sexual fluidity" and "bisexuality" are interchangeable, given that sexual fluidity is "is one or more changes in sexuality or sexual identity." A person or fictional character who changed their sexual identity would be evidencing sexual fluidity, but not necessarily bisexuality. As an example, a person who changed their sexual identity from bisexual to gay or straight would be showing fluidity but not bisexuality. A person whose sexual identity shifting from straight to gay or from gay to straight would also be showing fluidity of identity but not bisexuality. A person who identified as straight while engaging in homosexual behavior or a person who identified as gay while engaging in heterosexual behavior, likewise could be said to be showing sexual fluidity but not necessarily bisexual identity. The articles in these sexual fluidity categories largely address people experiencing change in sexuality or sexual identity, but may or may not identify as bisexual. Bisexuality and sexual fluidity can overlap, but are not the same thing. Satyricon2 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question really is, can we verify that a fictional character's sexual identity has changed? We can of course do so when the script contains the fictional character explicitly saying that their sexual identity has changed, but I suppose this hardly ever happens. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd be assuming incorrectly (there are at least several films that feature sexual fluidity as a central part of the plot). Sexual fluidity is about changing sexuality in general, sexual identity being only one aspect. There are plenty of representations of sexual fluidity in media, and a character explicitly verbally stating that their sexuality or sexual orientation has changed isn't the only way that sexual fluidity can be represented. Satyricon2 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The way it is represented in most of these articles is that a character alternately has a relationship or alternately has sex with people of different genders. But that is not decisive, because the character may have been bisexual all the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well no, most of the media here does not depict the characters as having "been bisexual all the time". Even if the character had been bisexual "all the time" (whatever that may mean to you), that doesn't mean that sexual fluidity isn't being depicted. Sexual fluidity and bisexuality are not non-overlapping. A person can be sexually fluid and identify as bisexual or be sexually fluid without identifying as bi and so forth. I reiterate what I said about misconceptions of sexual fluidity. If a work is widely discussed for depicting sexual fluidity, surely that aspect of narrative is relevant? Satyricon2 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't need WP:OR and overcategorization. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that the film and fiction trees should remain separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (do not merge) per earlier discussion. Also, I do not understand why User:Crossroads suggested a merge to begin with. With this rationale the outcome can only be keep or delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. I don't know if I can change the original proposals (strikethroughs of some kind would probably be required), but I put a note between the original proposals and my rationale. I'm sure the closer can figure it out. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sense does it make to have a page like Not Gay not have the "sexual fluidity" parent category? Satyricon2 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An alternate proposal, since all stops are being pulled to have categories deleted (not just merged as originally proposed), I'd suggest a page with a name like List of media portrayals of sexual fluidity or Media portrayals of sexual fluidity. Satyricon2 (talk) 09:55, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_12&oldid=939737185"