Trichome

thcscience_admin
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Fascism by nation[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to harmonize with siblings in Category:Political movements by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as cat. naming convention cleanup; this doesn't even have any conflict with any other concern like an article title using "nation".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename – obvious harmonization of categories, obviously falls into WP:CFD/S criteria. --PanchoS (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename To better match other categories in this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2016 (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:Japanese Jews[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. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole category seems misleading. It includes those immigrated to Japan and those born in Japan. I welcome alternatives. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, I am neutral on the proposal as a whole but oppose any variant of people in [place] categorization as too ephemeral. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. Depending on the content, we might need a parent Category:Judaism in Japan to match the rest of the Category:Judaism by country in category tree, and it should probably follow the structure of those country cats. We could even need a category for Japanese followers of Judaism; one would have to analyze all the article to be sure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - out of three "Jewish people of Japanese descent" in this category two are not Jewish by Halakhic law (Fumiko Kometani married a Jew, with no conversion, and her son Karl Taro Greenfeld is thus not Jewish as well). Do we need a category for one Japanese who converted to Judaism?GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two categories (Fooian Jews and Fooian people of Jewish descent) are common to most countries. The first generally means practising Jews born in a country or who have immigrated to a country on a permanent basis. The second means people born in a country or who have immigrated to a country on a permanent basis who may have Jewish parents or ancestors but who do not actually practise the religion. People in this category may have been miscategorised, but there's no reason create a new category structure for Japan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:American Jews means Jews who have American nationality. Category:Japanese Jews means Jews who have Japanese nationality. Whether such naming is the right way might be open to discussion, but if so we should consider all Jews by nationality categories at once.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jew is an ethno-religious designation. Someone does not have to "practice" Judaism in any way, shape or form to be in a Jew category. They belong in such categories if they self identify as being Jewish. The Jewish descent categories are for those who do not self-identify as Jews but have Jewish ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both Category:Jewish people in Japan and Category:Jewish people of Japanese descent as they do not fit in any existing category tree - and I don't think we need more trees here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2016 (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:Acts of piracy[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. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Insofar as piracy is an act, therefore there is no meaningful distinction between an "act of piracy" and "piracy". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the rationale suggests a case of WP:OVERLAPCAT, but apart from acts of piracy there are also pirates (biographies), measures against piracy etc. in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2016 (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:Template shortcuts[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. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is confused; this is not what template shortcut means. The templates categorized here are referred to as wrapper templates, and there are so few listed in the cat. surely because the wrong term was used in the category name, thus no one finds it. (The term template wrapper is also used, but would be no good here; we use "Foo templates" in the names of template categories so it's clear they are categories of templates. Template wrapper would be essentially meaningless in this context, since we don't have categories of "wrappers", and it would imply "wrappers, of undetermined kind, for templates", i.e. no clear inclusion criterion.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are templates like this referred to as wrapper templates? DexDor (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Template shortcuts says it's for (amongst other things) templates "to seamlessly redirect one template to another with different parameters." which doesn't appear to fit the definition of a wrapper template (e.g. "to greatly extend the basic functionality of the inner templates") (note: that essay needs updating - redlinks etc).
Many (perhaps most) templates use other templates and (afaics) there's no clear divide between such templates and "wrapper templates". What, for example, if a template is re-written (with no change to its functionality) and no longer uses another template? - it is then no longer a wrapper template so would need to be removed from the wrapper templates category. In short, I can't see a good reason for categorizing templates as wrapper templates. Note: Most (if not all) of the templates that use Template:Wrapper template have been deprecated for several years. DexDor (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2016 (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:Songs about betrayal[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 for now, without prejudice to one-by-one nominations or purging of inappropriate contents. After purging, it may be helpful to add comments on the category talk pages giving broad indications of what has been removed, or links to contribs. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF, WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:CAT which reads, inter alia, “The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.”
Song lyrics extensively use Simile, Metaphor, Allegory, Alliteration (sometimes words are added just because they sound nice), and every other literary and poetic device known. Sometimes a song’s meaning could be as plain as day, sometimes it is so obscure that it is possible not even the songwriter understand what the meaning is! So then an editor comes along and adds a song into a category because the word is in the title.
Consequently these categories cannot useful, songs are added because an editor “interprets” the song as belong there. In many instances the article is silent about what the song is “about”
I have taken one category (Drinking and driving) to examine how items are added to these categories:-
Title From article My comment
B.J. the D.J. B.J. is well respected for his skills, rapport with the community, and playing music the fans wanted to hear. At the same time, in addition to his regular disk jockey job he also works multiple jobs Not one mention of alcohol.
The Ballad of Thunder Road It tells the tale of "Lucas Doolin" (Robert Mitchum), a bootlegger So he drives alcohol, but this is not was inferred by the category
Gin and Juice lyrics, “Rollin' down the street smokin' indo/Sippin' on gin and juice No mention of driving” Note: This is in 4 “songs about” categories, so I can’t think any are defining.
Hands on the Wheel Nothing in article Therefore not defining
One for My Baby (and One More for the Road) Nothing noted in the article ”One for the road” just means one more drink before leaving the bar. Nothing to do with driving.
Pursuit of Happiness (song) Nothing in article Therefore not defining.
Stan (song) Lyric, “slim, I drank a fifth of vodka you dare me to drive” It’s a passing mention and hardly the theme of the song. It is listed in 8 lyric-related categories !
Untitled (How Could This Happen to Me?) The music video of this song tells a story of a car accident on a rainy evening where a young male drunk driver… The article is silent as to what the song is about
Wiggle It (2 in a Room song) The song is, of course, about dancing and partying, but at the same time also contains a serious message encouraging people not to drink and drive Well, a last an entry with a reasonable claim to be included.

Additional Notes:

  1. Songs about Prison. This previous nomination was closed with instructions to purge. This has not happened and still there are songs added by interpretation, i.e. I Shall Be Released.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about rain, the closing points by User:DangerousPanda were. “The result was delete. The list as currently published includes songs that *are* and are *not* about rain. As argued below, the inclusion of the word "rain" in a title or lyric may or may not be a literal use of the word "rain". The title itself is therefore open to too much possible interpretation - after all is Riders on the Storm a song about rain? The arguments therefore show that the list is unmanageable in its ability to appropriately discern between songs truly about rain, songs with rain in the title, songs with rain as a simile, and on top of that songs about storms of the rain variety but don't include the word rain predominantly. Therefore, as a wholly undefinable and unmanageable list, it cannot meet WP:LISTN” That goes for categories, but so much more so.
  3. Nothing in my nomination should suggest that there isn’t a suitable subject for an article (not a category or list) for some of the subjects nominated here.
  4. I have seen songs in up to 8 different “about” or similar categories, which must be WP:OVERCAT
  5. I have, at the moment listed all “Songs about” categories with the exception of “Songs About a place” which probably should have been added too.
  6. This is a nomination for all other “Songs about” because some editors have taken the view that individual categories should not be picked out. I am not sure I agree with that argument.
  7. User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme Contains more discussion, analysis and results of previous CfD discussions.
  8. The following discussions are ongoing elsewhere at present and are not listed here:-

. Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent, while looking at the list of all previous discussions that are mentioned in Songs about aircraft and looking at the arguments mentioned in all these discussions (largely general arguments with respect to the songs by theme), and looking at the outcome of all previous nominations, it seems pretty obvious that this is not a well-defined category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm only familiar with Category:Songs about birds in passing, but wonder how much of the issue is the definition of the category and how much is editors not paying attention to the definition. There is not a sharp line between a "strong mention" and "being about," but a sufficiently groomed category would be useful. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. Do any of the categories proposed for deletion have subcats that would need to be reparented? (Category:Songs by theme currently has 660 subcategories). DexDor (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:. Most (all?) of the categories are incorrectly in several categories including parent and sub-cats and I did not see any problems regarding parenting. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've now looked at most of the nominated categories and didn't find any problems with parenting of subcats. DexDor (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided on this at the moment, but I'll put the opposing view. In the sample of these categories that I looked at - in most cases the categorization is reasonable - e.g. the pages in Category:Songs about bicycles (although Nine Million Bicycles is dubious). These categories could be very useful for someone trying to find info about a song they can't remember the name of or looking for a song on a particular theme (e.g. to sing/play at some event) so if not kept as categories they should at least be listified. Note: such lists should be encouraged to give some details (e.g. a list of songs about suicide should distinguish those about the singer considering suicide and those about someone else's suicide). DexDor (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of songs about bicycles already exists, and appears to meet WP:LISTN as having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I created Category:Songs about bicycles before that list existed, but have no objection to the deletion of the category. A list clearly works better here; for one thing, many songs don't have their own articles so can't be included in categories, but articles on albums, musicals or other larger works of which they form a part can be linked from lists. Qwfp (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This RfC is wrong-headed. Many of these categories are perfectly reasonable and useful, however uninterested the OP might be. They can only be taken on an individual basis. Lots of bad entries are not an argument for deletion, they can simply be removed from the category and that will simply make it clearer whether the category is worth keeping. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and close These group nominations are always doomed from the start. Some of these will be defining (Category:Songs about The Troubles (Northern Ireland) seems an obvious good example), some will not. I think the more dubious ones should be tackled on a case-by-case basis, so no issue with them being nominated individually. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Lugnuts. Many of these should be deleted, many should not, and will have to be taken case-by-case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts. The issue with these categories is that they currently include some songs that aren't meaningfully about their eponymous theme, but I can certainly imagine readers/researchers finding each and every one of these groups useful. I also disagree with several of OP's examples. For instance, Eminem's "Stan" is absolutely about drunk driving – the third of its four main verses (including the story's climax) is told entirely from the perspective of a man drunk-driving, and the final stanza focuses on the aftermath of this event. Alcohol is only mentioned directly a couple of times, but those mentions change the entire subject and direction of the song.
I think this gets at a broader issue: just how many times, or how literally, must something be mentioned in a song before we can say that the song is "about" that subject? This is also an issue in categorising films, television, and literature, but songs are usually much more abstract and open to interpretation than other art forms. Is there a way to quantify this? And what about cases where the author's comments about the meaning of their song contradict or are not directly supported by the lyrics themselves – how does the The Death of the Author interact with Category:Songs by theme?
(I believe I inadvertently set off this entire dispute by creating Category:Songs about the Moon. It's not the most defensible example, but I felt that the prominent use of the Moon as an image or symbol within a song constituted a defining trait. Am I alone in finding it strange for The Killing Moon and Man on the Moon not to share a category? Is a song in which the Moon is just a big physical rock really "about the Moon" more than a song in which the Moon represents the cosmic or a human emotion?) —Flax5 13:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Steelpillow, Lugnuts SMcCandlish, If a single category is nominated for deletion there is always a comment that all the “about” categories should be listed together. Now they are all listed I see “each category should be listed separately.” Once I even had a request to withdraw by somebody who offered to help with a group nomination. No help was forthcoming after I withdrew the nominations. I have yet to see one of these categories saved on policy/guidelines, (For a list of previous nominations see here) I have often heard that the members need purging, but none of the people suggesting that has ever bothered to purge. (Also see my comment about the prison category above). If I trimmed, they would either be deleted as empty or, occasionally, under WP:SMALLCAT.
John mentioned Category:Songs about birds so I went through the category, and you can see my comments here. It is debatable whether there is one song which is truly about “birds.” So effectively this category was chosen by somebody other than me and goes to prove the point that these categories fail WP:NONDEF.
Flax5 says “For instance, Eminem's "Stan" is absolutely about drunk driving” Besides the fact that the article doesn’t actually say that (it merely quotes a stanza of lyric), the song is also in the following lyric-based categories, Category:Borderline personality disorder in fiction, Category:Horrorcore songs, Category:LGBT-related songs, Category:Murder ballads, Category:Self-harm in fiction, Category:Songs about domestic violence, Category:Songs about drinking and driving, Category:Songs about suicide, Category:Vehicle wreck ballads, Category:Works about stalking. Now I ask a question, how can all these categories be defining of one song? You also went on to say, “but songs are usually much more abstract and open to interpretation than other art forms.” (My bold). Quite. If it is open to interpretation it cannot be a defining attribute. We might as well nominate these cats for renaming Category:Songs which contain the word XXX in the lyrics and/or title. At least then they would contain what it says on the tin.
Lugnuts selects one category Category:Songs about The Troubles (Northern Ireland) as an example why there should be separate nominations. Again there are songs which do not say they what are about, Give Ireland Back to the Irish isn’t about the troubles although it was influenced by the news about the troubles. This is an ideal subject for a scholarly article “Songs and the Troubles” but it completely poleaxed by a category holding random songs. As I said in my nomination, some are worthy of an article, but not just a random category of what somebody thinks should be in a member.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "If a single category is nominated for deletion there is always a comment that all the “about” categories should be listed together" – when listing separate, if someone says that refer them to this CfD suggesting case-by-case listing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's how we finished up here... There are reasonable arguments for both together and separate, but we are now at together because previously the argument was to keep together. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've found one entry in the Category:Songs about The Troubles (Northern Ireland) that you think shouldn't belong in that category. Maybe the better way would be to remove the category from that article, rather than suggesting the category should be deleted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be working from the premise that a song cannot have more than a certain number of defining themes, which I don't believe is true. By any reasonable literal reading of the lyrics, "Stan" is about an obsessive fan who deliberately kills his girlfriend and himself by drunk-driving. The "borderline personality disorder in fiction" and "LGBT-related songs" categories seem to be original research, and while I'm unfamiliar with horrorcore, there's a reliable source to support that classification. This leaves us with six or seven categories for the song's themes/content, and while that's admittedly quite a few, I don't think any account of the song is complete without all of that information. Also bear in mind that several of these categories overlap significantly – it's perfectly common for a song about self-harm also to be about suicide, or for a murder ballad also to be about domestic violence. If the article doesn't mention the critical element of drunk-driving, I would venture that it's an oversight in the article itself rather than the categorisation system.
When I commented on the abstract nature of many songs, I was referring to more nebulous works such as "The Killing Moon", which bear more complex relationships to their subject matter – that's the sort of thing I'm interested in exploring with respect to the thematic categorisation tree. Just to be clear, I don't have a pathological obsession with the Moon or anything, I'm just using it as an example of a less clear-cut element that still forms a focal point in many songs. Nor do I agree that the element of ambiguity rules out semantic categorisation – any work of art is open to interpretation, and I think Roger Waters's closing "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon", while not as literal, is comparable to Eminem's "Hey Slim, I drank a fifth of vodka, you dare me to drive?" in terms of the shadow it casts across the rest of the song. —Flax5 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am working from the many WP guidelines, including WP:NONDEF which reads,
"*a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
  • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;
  • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining."
--Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These categories have been applied too loosely. A few might work, but we should rebuild a new tree instead of keeping the flawed one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- The nom cannot expect the closing admin to undertake a purge. Songs about (subject) is legitimate as a category, and would be useful for someone wanting to undertaken a study of a subject. Where songs are not in fact about the subject, they should be removed individually. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts and per Peterkingiron. For at least many of these the subject is a defining category (and in some cases a song can have multiple subjects that are defining). If there are specific such categories that are problematic those should be nominated individually so that the reasons why those specific subjects are not defining can be discussed. And if someone is studying a subject such as the assassination of JFK including its aftereffects, a category like Category:Songs about the assassination of John F. Kennedy (assuming it is being applied correctly) serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for the same reasons cited by Rlendog.
  • Keep all. Of course, a song may not be categorized without the theme being explicitly mentioned in the article. Usually we will have to refer to secondary sources describing that a song is about foo or about bar. The fact that many song articles are lacking the required sources however doesn't infer the categories being ill-defined or otherwise invalid. --PanchoS (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per others really. Of course, this all depends on the song: how does I'm Like A Bird not get in the category but Rubber Duckie does? Of course, there are some expections: Songs about causal sex (since it's redundant thanks to Songs about sexuality, unless that category implies long-lasting relationships?) and Songs about JFK's assassination and Songs about Barack Obama so as to merge them as Songs about United States Presidents (the latter suffers from redundancy thanks to Songs about murder while the latter could eventually end up being irrelevant since there's going to be an election later this year as I speak). BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I'd support deleting some categories individually. When you go deeper into this tree, there are plenty of questionable cats, e.g. just about all the subcats in Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons. I do support the concept of categorizing songs by theme. szyslak (t) 07:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most or all of them. I can't see why one would think that getting rid of Wikipedia's entire category system for songs would be a good idea.
Sometimes a song’s meaning could be as plain as day, sometimes it is so obscure that it is possible not even the songwriter understand what the meaning is! So then an editor comes along and adds a song into a category because the word is in the title.
Consequently these categories cannot useful, songs are added because an editor “interprets” the song as belong there. In many instances the article is silent about what the song is “about”
Well then these entries need to have their respective category removed instead of the categories having to get deleted. If necessary (sufficiently metaphoric, complex, minimalistic etc. or controversial) one could require a reliable source for the addition of such a category. --Fixuture (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But (per WP:DOAC) category additions can't be referenced, unlike lists, which seem preferable here to me. Qwfp (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - a lot of these are of some value. Others may be unnecessary. Let those who care do the hard work! And - I do not care a bit if a jail or a storm is literal or figurative. I notice "I Shall Be Released" is nominated here as "not really about a prison, really". Well - "I remember ev’ry face/Of ev’ry man who put me here/All day long I hear him shout so loud/Crying out that he was framed" - who is actually going to make this call? Is there going to be a debate over the metaphorical valence of all of these hundreds of lyrics? Are we going to say "well, Dylan was never in jail so ha!"? Nominating the whole shebang for deletion looks like a savage pleasure to me. Redheylin (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Redheylin:. I Shall Be Released was written by Bob Dylan, a writer who is celebrated for his use of allegory, parable and every other literary device, so much so that there are numerous books published discussing the *possible* meanings of his songs. So you have decided that this one, that doesn't mention the word "prison" must be about prison. You will find no RS that this song is about a prison, so therefore fails WP:NONDEF. FWIW, and strictly IMHO, given the content of other songs written by Dylan at the same time, it is probably about release from his management contract. Bugger all to do with incarceration. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it's about a metaphorical prison and it's not? In fact the web is heaving with statements that it's about prison, which you are, of course, free to find unreliable. Redheylin (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redheylin:. Being interpreted as about prison is not the same as being about prison. Song does not belong in the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about - it will just be my interpretation. When you say "song does not belong in the category", maybe this is some kind of metaphorical song and category. How can I even know which song you mean, and which category? It is better not to assume anything, so I shall not answer it. Redheylin (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redheylin:. Perhaps we are talking about the song that you and I mentioned above. Didn't realise I had to repeat "I Shall Be Released" for you to follow thread. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts. Do the categories illuminate the songs categorized in any way? I think they do or at least can. By all means, purge examples that aren't supported by the actual lyrics of the song, but deletion would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Bjones (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2016 (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:Physician[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; reverting to long-standing status quo ante. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently moved from Physicians to Physician without discussion, and the only explanation was "i think singular makes more sense" in the edit summary. This category had been well established for 12 years, and is more appropriate at "Physicians". If you look at the parent categories, all of the occupation categories are in the plural form (see Category:People in health professions, Category:People by occupation, Category:Healthcare occupations). Penbat (talk · contribs) has also just added many new (IMO inappropriate) articles to this category, so it doesn't really reflect what it was a few days ago. This is mostly a container category for specific physicians and types of physicians. It had {{catdiffuse}} on it, which was also removed without explanation. Specifically, recent additions of organizations (regulatory, societal, and academic) that contain the word "Physician" should not be in this category, but rather subcategories. I propose that the page Category:Physicians be deleted so that Category:Physician can be moved back to Category:Physicians, and each of the new additions be re-evaluated. Essentially, the point of this CFR is to undo and clean up an undiscussed, controversial move. Scott Alter (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, both under CfD's own criteria for naming conventions, and WP:RM's that undiscussed controversial moves revert to status quo ante.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert/Support per WP:PLURAL "categories are almost always given plural titles" because they are grouping more than one of that thing. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2016 (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:Women's sports in Sweden[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 Category:Women's sport in Sweden to Category:Women's sports in Sweden. There is consensus to merge, there is no consensus about whether or not to include the plural 's' in the name. A new nomination for multiple countries simultaneously in order to harmonize the spelling within the tree would be welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging one into the other:

Rationale: I see no difference between the scope of these categories, so they should be merged into a single category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for the Category:Women's sports by country tree uses "sport" no 's'. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such convention in Category:Women's sports by country to use "sport" no s; it uses both, on a MOS:TIES basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 83 of the national subcategories use "sport" and only 18 use "sports". The British English are in both; what is the MOS:TIES basis I'm missing? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you used the same word "sport" in both cases I don't know what figures you're reporting, and it's to irrelevant for me to go look, because. Whether it's on a TIES basis or not is irrelevant; the point was established naming conventions for the Category:Women's sports by country tree uses "sport" no 's' is clearly not correct. That said, "sport" used in this way is almost unknown in American English, but it exists semi-frequently in Canadian. Both usages exist in British English, with the singular construction dominating, and they may have a different implication depending on the context (an organization that organized youth football, indoor football, and futsal competition might call itself the Brill Youth Football Sports Society. One that dealt with a wide range of sports, in general, would use "sport" in its name). Usage in the rest of the world is divided, to varying degrees. In more cases than not with categories like these (if they do not impose a single spelling, which can irritate editors and presumable some readers who don't find the spelling appropriate), you'll find that the category name matches the average usage of the ENGVAR of the articles in it, thus TIES. Many, many, categories do not have 100% perfect compliance with the convention in the category but this does not mean they have no convention. A split of 83 vs. 18, however, is significant enough divergence that it's almost certainly intentional (i.e. the convention is the follow what being done in the articles, +/- some indeterminate degree of error), though there may be multiple editorial intentions working at cross-purposes. None of which, pro or con, makes your argument any more valid than when I addressed it the first time. There's no convention there, there's just a statistical skew.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Category:Women's sport in Sweden, per Category:Sport in Sweden. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Category:Women's sports in Sweden (with s) and move the men's category to conform. Absent a WP:STRONGNAT tie (Sweden is not an English-speaking country), it should be normalized to the parent category name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other, but probably to Category:Women's sport in Sweden, without the "s". I would prefer to match it to the parent Category:Sport in Sweden over the parent Category:Women's sports by country, simply because there is a lot of variation in the subcategories of Category:Women's sports by country and one has to a bit of twisting in knots to explain why it should be renamed to that parent. For me, it's a bit more a straight line to understanding why it should be matched to Category:Sport in Sweden. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Women's sports in Sweden per wP:COMMONALITY, the plural "sports" form is found in British and American and Canadian, while the nonplural form is not found in all three, so use the plural as it is common. The entire tree can move to the plural form. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire tree can move to the plural form. If/when it does, then that would be the time to move this subcategory. It would be premature to impose the plural form on this category merely on the assumption that the same will happen for the "entire tree". -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not matter if the tree is not renamed, since my justification applies just the same. The COMMONALITY version is the plural, and as the tree has mixed usage, either form may be chosen for this category. Thus the COMMONALITY form should be chosen -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (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:WKU Hilltoppers football navigational boxes[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. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: article title is Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football Joeykai (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2016 (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:LSU Lady Tigers soccer[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is titled LSU Tigers women's soccer Joeykai (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2016 (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:One-eyed people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If I understand this correctly, this category is for people who are blind in one eye, but the title implies this category is for people who are missing an eye and literally only have one eye. Also, would people with one real eye and one fake eye still be included here. The current title is confusing and ambiguous. Joeykai (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the title "Monophthalmic people" the ambiguity disappears and people with one real eye and one fake eye could be included here with no problem. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 10:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly re-create under a new name and with strict inclusion criteria. For most (if not all) of the articles in this category (e.g. Henry II of France, Murry Wilson) it is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See also essay WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, I've checked a number of articles and don't consider it to be a defining characteristic. In some articles there was no mention of it in the text at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. We do not need a category or a list for any formulation of this. There is nothing encyclopedic about labelling people as having been born without an eye, having suffered damage to or loss of one eye, or using a prosthetic eye.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With such reasoning you should also proposed to the deletion categories like Category:Blind people, Category:Mute people, Category:Deaf people and any others categories about disability which is, in my humble opinion, not really smart. This isn't because personally we find no utility in a category that is necessarily useless for everyone, for example I'm glad it exists if I have to make a presentation on disability and that allows me to find some notorious examples. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Being blind is arguably a defining characteristic. Having vision not as good as average isn't one. Neither is having been wounded. Neither is having a common birth defect the result of which is non-defining, like vision not as good as average.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Monophthalmic people and maybe sort. Sorry but my native language is French and in our language we have a specific term used in everyday language for that, the word "borgne". Seems its equivalent in English is the word "one-eyed", it sounds vague but this is the appropriate term to describe this disability in common English language. But if it's too fuzzy you can rename the category by the proper medical term (noun "monophthalmus" = the disability, adjective "monophtalmic" = suffer this disability ; monophtalmie in French, quite transparent meaning even if no-one use it here but medics workers). Then about the content, at its creation I imported and merged it mainly from fr.wikipedia + some notable borgne peoples I found out there. If they are not define in the English wiki it means their related articles miss this information, a lot of others seems to be add since so it may worth to make a sort. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- The Greek derived Category:Monophthalmic people is obscure (except to medics). Whether people who choose to wear a false eye, an eye patch or nothing is hardly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2016 (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.

Identical British awards issued multiple times to the same person[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
18 more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEFINING (but not WP:OCAWARD)
These categories all group people by how many times they have received the same exact award, not different levels or degrees of an award. This seems trivial because the people who won the Distinguished Service order 4 times don't have any more or less in common with each other than those that only won it 1 time, for example. We don't categorize governors who were elected twice differently than those who were elected once or singers with 3 albums differently than singers with 4 albums. (I'm not asserting that winning the underlying award is undefining under WP:OCAWARD.)
In the UK, recipients receive a medal bar when they earn an award more than once rather than receiving separate physical medals. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Kernel Saunters as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background Because of the different category naming convention, I overlooked these when I nominated the equivalent American, Soviet, Irish and Polish multiple award categories. For those earlier CFD nominations, see here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge redundant categories that exist only to categorize something non-defining and a trivial intersection. It's like having actor categories for "who have appeared in two films", "who have appeared in three films", etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- per precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2016 (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.

Categories: Synchronized swimming categories for Brazil, China[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 China, no consensus on Brazil. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The proposed changes include "Synchronised" to "Synchronized" for both Brazil and China as I think that the American spelling with “Z” rather than “S” is appropriate for these countries, and should apply throughout the country category. “Z” is already used for Category:Brazilian synchronized swimmers, Category:Chinese synchronized swimmers and Category:Synchronized swimming competitions in China. The changes were objected to when proposed as a “Speedy” change. NB:I have retained Category:Olympic synchronized swimmers Mexico to Category:Olympic synchronized swimmers of Mexico in the "Speedy" category. Hugo999 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Violates the long-standing principle of WP:RETAIN which states "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change" ie, a change from one variety of English to the other. WP:RETAIN also states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another" AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong" Comment: WP:RETAIN is only the last resort, and should come into play only when there is nothing else to stick to. In this case, AusLondonder's way of reasoning serves only to preserve inconsistencies, as I imagine they would oppose moving the other Brazilian/Chinese categories on the same grounds. I realize that consistency cannot always be achieved (see for instance football/soccer categories), but that's not the case here. Whether it's these categories that should be moved, or the other ones, to achieve consistency, I can't say. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support is stronger, and has an expensive personal trainer. Support Brazil per: 1) We conventionally use AmEng for Western Hemisphere topics absent a strong Canadian or British tie (e.g. British Virgin Islands); and 2) normalize to the parent category names, Category:Synchronized swimming by country, and Category:Synchronized swimming. Support China, which has no strong national tie to any WP:ENGVAR, per rationale #2.

    MOS:RETAIN does not apply outside mainspace. It is a last-resort instruction to prefer at a particular article the choice, between multiple acceptable styles, that was used in the first non-stub version of it, when there is no clear consensus on which should be used. By design, RETAIN specifically does not apply across sets of articles (i.e. categories). It prevents forcing arbitrary consistency across the titles and content of multiple articles. Such consistency is generally desirable in a category naming schema. Not all article rules apply to categories, or vice versa. (And there is no such thing as a stub vs. Start-class-or-better version of a category.) RETAIN is often confused with MOS:STRONGNAT (a.k.a. MOS:TIES), an actual rationale to prefer one English variety over another when there are strong national ties. If AusLondonder meant to make that argument, they should clarify their statement.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know where to start with your astounding remarks. You support renaming the Chinese category from British to American English despite admitting yourself that China has no strong ties to any variety of English. I agree. Leave it alone then. To suggest "we conventionally use" American English spelling for the Western Hemisphere is just sad. Firstly, unless an English-speaking nation has strong ties to one variety of English, there exists no justification for moving from British to American spelling. Secondly, the United Kingdom itself is partly located in the Western Hemisphere, as is Ireland and parts of New Zealand. Your rationale here is so absurd it is troubling. AusLondonder (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note SMcCandlish, an American editor, has a long-running history of opposing non-American spelling on this project. For example, he extremely angrily opposed a rename of Category:Indian skeptics to Category:Indian sceptics on the grounds that ""Sceptic" is a corruption of "skeptic"; no reason to use it when the original is perfectly intelligible." This would be the same as me trying to move Category:Labor in the United States to Category:Labour in the United States on the justification that labor is a corruption of labour. This editor is also involved in opposing/questioning the use of "organisation" in Indian English, despite it being the overwhelming preference of the media and government in India. This editor also argued at Talk:Full stop that "The term "period" is used pretty consistently throughout most English dialects in the Western Hemisphere (except for some isolated, heavily British-influenced Caribbean ones) including Canadian English" something that is so patently false and absurd it borders on the hilarious. All this seems to me like rather unpleasant spelling imperialism. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: do you oppose achieving consistency, for any of the spellings, for the Brazilian/Chinese categories? And please, stick to the issue. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2016 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_20

Leave a Reply