Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Category:Human male conflict over females[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. The editor who created this category and its predecessor has been warned. – Fayenatic London 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not quite sure what this category is trying to capture but the title is pretty weird. Is this supposed to be about instances where human males battled with human females as the prize for the winner? In any case, the contents of the category are all over the place. For example, I just don't see any category that would in any natural way link comfort women, prehistoric warfare and Viking expansion. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Human behaviour is a too wide topic to categorize every aspect of it. Wonder if there will be in the near future categories like "Human female conflict over males" (a number of "jealuosy murders" and female-vs-female duels can be suitable for) or worst than this, "Human (male or female) conflict over animals" (PETA? Animal Liberation Front?) ;).---Darius (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. This diff shows that the creator of the category was well aware of the initial CfD. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 23 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:Female bisexuality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, none of the (few) articles is specifically about bisexuality. There is no need to merge, the subcategories are already somewhere else in the Bisexuality tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 22 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:Forgotten Realms deities[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: Not merged Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category structure is now at a point where the arbitrary splits are unnecessary for organization. There is nothing distinctive enough about the campaign settings in relation to the dieties to need to categorize the characters in such a way. TTN (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Inclined to oppose, since in fact "the category structure is now at a point where the ... splits" are maintained; see Category:Dungeons & Dragons characters. I know enough about the subject to know that these splits are in fact reader-helpful, as the campaign settings are in most cases completely separate from each other; they are different fictional continuities that just share most of a gaming rule-system, aside from some crossover points.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose - I am not aware of any recent consensus in category space which renders a well-defined subcategory 'unnecessary'. A split into a sub-genre is not 'arbitrary'. Oculi (talk) 09:57, 22 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:Tartans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split rather than rename. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a mass noun, tartan refers to the fabric/design style and to the general concept, while the count noun tartans means specific setts of tartan (e.g. various particular clan tartans). While the category does have articles and subcategories of specific tartans, it also encompasses the more conceptual sense, as does the main article, Tartan. Many of the article entries are on particular (often simple) forms of anonymous folk tartan, such as Border tartan, Sillitoe tartan, and Hodden; these are simply tartan (i.e., chequed-pattern cloth), they are not tartans in the representative and count-noun sense, like Royal Stewart tartan and Black Watch tartan. The category also contains things pertaining to the overall history of tartan, such as Vestiarium Scoticum, Category:Tartan organisations, Category:Tartan databases, etc., which are not tartans but are within the conceptual scope of tartan. Notice how their names would get mangled if pluralised: *Category:Tartans organisations, etc. (it's a bit Gollum-esque: "Tartans organisationses, Precious" ha ha))  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope. Keep the current category but create Category:Tartan as a parent cat. Then move the articles which aren't about specific setts into the parent. Grutness...wha? 03:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is the correct collective noun for all the clan (and other) tartans. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • @SMcCandlish and Peterkingiron: is the alternative of User:Grutness an acceptable compromise? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a perfectly fine solution, as long people do not object to there being an additional category layer. (I'm a fan of such specificity, but not everyone is, which is why I didn't make that proposal in the first place. I sometimes get too much push back on such ideas, as I learned the hard way in a few categories.) And Peterkingiron, did you even read the nomination statement? "This is the correct collective noun for all the clan (and other) tartans" isn't responsive to it in any way, and assumes that the contents of the the category are simply tartans in the count-noun sense, when the entire point of the nom is that they are not. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 5 April 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:American Marine Corps personnel of the Vietnam War[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Request renaming to fix incorrect name of the military branch. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should one category say "air force" (lower case), but another say "Marine Corps" (with the "M" and "C" in upper case)? DexDor (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we change the scheme, in an effort to streamline cat names, I recommend considering just Marines, as in American Marines of the Vietnam War or United States Marines of the Vietnam War, either cap or not cap for Marines. Marines is an appropriate collective term for the personnel serving in the Corps, both officers and enlisted. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:32, 22 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:Meteorological organizations[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: Reverse merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can't see what the difference is supposed to be. Originally created as a redirect to the suggested target, then populated by indef-blocked user Look2See1. Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ƏXPLICIT 00:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the hierarchy is better, it is still not clear what the added value of the "institutions" category layer is. For example, what makes government agencies (the subcats in institutions) an institution (or institute)? And why is Category:World Meteorological Organization not in the institutions subcat? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_22&oldid=951467800"