Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25[edit]

Medieval Byzantine Roman consuls[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. bibliomaniac15 18:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, non-defining secondary title of early medieval Byzantine emperors. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @Avilich, Dimadick, No Great Shaker, Peterkingiron, and Laurel Lodged: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing non-defining about a title that continued to exist for over a millennium. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was surely defining in the millennium before the 7th century AD but that is not what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The traditional consulship, meaning the yearly office whose holders gave their name to the year, was abolished by Justinian I in AD 541, 6th century. After that it was just an honorific used occasionally by Byzantine emperors. It's hardly a defining characteristic from that point. Avilich (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once the yearly appointment ceased and it became an honorific, we should not have a category: it amounts to OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was just an award by then, not an office in any meaningful sense. Not that it was very meaningful in the 6ty century, but that's another story. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychoanalytic books about homosexuality[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 to Category:Psychoanalytic books. bibliomaniac15 18:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bi Wikipedians[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, I will add Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians as a parent to the second parent category - feel free to change if that is not the best solution (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This two-element container category (both members of which are themselves of dubious utility) provides no navigational value, as its two subcategories have no more in common with each other than they do with, for example, other subcategories of Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2020s in police brutality[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 to Category:Police brutality in the 2020s. bibliomaniac15 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "In police brutality" looks ungrammatical in this context, as it's not a country or other entity where "in" could be applicable. Brandmeistertalk 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "In police brutality" looks ungrammatical in this context, as it's not a country or other entity where "in" could be applicable. Brandmeistertalk 16:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't this very narrow? Category:2020s crimes and its subcategories by type of crime may suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly. I would not mind merging there, but not all of them were crimes, strictly speaking. Brandmeistertalk 16:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If any articles are about mere allegations they should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined two items that are obviously similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename -- The 2010s category has about 18 articles, mostly on deaths. If the 2020s one is still small, we can still keep it as a sibling, as I expect it will unformtunately be populated in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. --Just N. (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coulrophilia[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The only article that (per WP:CATV) could ever properly be in this category is Coulrophilia, a recently created article itself of dubious notability and by the same editor as this category. (Note the comments made at Talk:Coulrophilia.) Every other listing here appears to be original research. Crossroads -talk- 07:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A categorisation does not lose validity just because there is a unique membership to it: like African-American Presidents of the USA, female Swedish Prime Ministers, female Australian Prime Ministers, or even Widowed Academy Award winning French Polish-American rapists.
It stands as useful to bring together the instances where this certain class of performers and fictional characters are treated in the context of loving fascination & eroticism. Expect other things such as publications to be brought into it.
Plus what you say does not hold water: how could you exclude the late artist honored as Queen of Clown Porn from its purview ?? Or do people patronise viewing fetishes that are not in some way an arousal for them?
And would you therefore logically and consistently also exclude the King of Pop from Category:Motown artists? SAMBLAman (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add the detail that said deletion was 15 years ago, then again 5 years ago and both times for being 'dictionary definitions' (9 word or so orphaned articles): a pretty simple and obvious issue. In the years since a score of refs have been assembled but still a way is found not to examine those sources one by one (and some are from publications with long and/or award-winning reputations). Now tell me that was "just a dictionary definition". SAMBLAman (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the repeated deletions of the coulrophilia article, the non-notable and unreliable citations that filled the again-deleted article usually without mentioning the term at all, the circular and insular nature of the category, and the fact that this neologistic variant of psychiatric terminology is not an actual diagnosis and is therefore inherently misleading. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think balloon fetish exists among psychiatric diagnoses? No, it's just a commonly understood description of a particular tendency. Here we have another tendency popularly referred to as clown fetish, among other terms. It is most convenient for you to badmouth the citations when you yourself nuked the article in avoidance of a process of having community appraisal of them: talk page deliberation, which may escalate to AfD vote only after getting to the point of intractability. Instead WP:G4 was abused by speed-deleting something that was NOT "substantially identical to the (2016) previously deleted version". That previous version, which I've never seen, is admitted to have been just a "dictionary definition". Yah well this goes far beyond that. User:David Gerard has actually been here long enough to know better about the corruption committed in abrogating the minimum earned due process, & that has enlarged by having knock-on prejudicial effects upon the category and template retention discussions presently in process. Why doesn't he recall that stuffup and go back so it gets dealt with by the correct application of our policies?? SAMBLAman (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the main article seems to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5. as useless crap anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please go back and review WP:CSD, Dronebogus, because there is no way G5 applies to this situation. It's for ban evasion and sockpuppets, not a recently indefinitely blocked editor. Let the deletion discussions proceed. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, --Just N. (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Images of Szidi Tobias[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 and reparent (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While the album covers do contain images of Szidi Tobias, the proper scheme for such image files should follow that of Category:Album covers by recording artist with the category then being parented accordingly. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_25&oldid=1060957120"