Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 2



Category:Jonathan Groff

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting jonathan groff


 * Nominator's rationale: Category for only the eponymous article and one image file is completely unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. How has this lasted a full year without getting noticed? Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – difficult to see why the image file exists as it doesn't link anywhere. Oculi (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Aeni theme songs

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting aeni theme songs


 * Nominator's rationale: The one article in this category is for an album, which is appropriately categorized in Category:Aeni albums. The album is not an "aeni theme song" and does not belong in this category. I had removed the album from the category, which emptied the category, but it got put back. It would be an overcategorization nightmare if albums were to be placed in songs categories. I mean, you wouldn't put Lemonade (Beyoncé album) in Category:Contemporary R&B songs. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: The "theme song(s)" is certainly different from the "album(s)". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – the article doesn't mention Aeni at all. Moreover Aeni is a redirect, so any category mentioning Aeni should be renamed. I agree with the nom that albums are not songs. Oculi (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:MDA Labor Day Telethon broadcasters

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting mda labor day telethon broadcasters


 * Nominator's rationale: Category for individual television stations that have carried a single syndicated program. As always, this is not an appropriate basis for a category: stations are not defined by this fact, and it would lead to extreme category bloat if we created similar categories for every TV station that ever carried Ellen and Entertainment Tonight and Arsenio Hall and Hee Haw and Xena: Warrior Princess and TMZ and Maury Povich and Oprah and and and and and. We have a long-established consensus against categorizing television stations by every individual syndicated program they may have carried outside of their primary network affiliations, and there's no reason why this one should be a special case -- TV Guide is one of the things consensus accepts as what Wikipedia is not. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is in the nature of a PERFORMANCE or a VENUE category, neither of whuich we allow as they generate category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:WPIX

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting wpix


 * Nominator's rationale: Per extensive past consensus against eponymous categories for individual television stations. While the shows here were produced by the station itself rather than being syndicated, that fact is still adequately covered by categories such as and, without needing an eponymous category for their home television station. And apart from one court case and the eponym itself, the only other thing filed here was individual personalities who've appeared on the station, a clear WP:PERFCAT violation. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 solicitors

 * 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: selectively merge to to Category:American lawyers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:American solicitors to Category:American lawyers
 * Nominator's rationale: The United States does not recognize a distinction between solicitors and barristers. Although the Federal and many State governments have officers entitled "solicitors general," these officers actually perform functions analogous to those of a barrister — advocating for the government's interests in court. This category is therefore highly misleading to any reader from a Commonwealth jurisdiction who might stumble upon it. To the extent that any of the topics in this category relate to some other sense of the word "solicitor," it appears to me that they would all be correctly categorized under American lawyers. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge as proposed. I note that this is already largely redundant to the existing category, Category:State solicitors general in the United States, which is also its own subcategory. bd2412  T 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle, Merge BUT -- The state Solicitors-General belong in Category:State solicitors general in the United States, which will best not directly be in the target, as it will clutter it up. There are about 8 bio-articles.  I sampled about 5, of which two had no obvious reasons to be in this category.  The other three consisted of a "city solicitor", a "county solicitor", both presumably minor local officials that do not need categorising, and Solicitor to the Department of the Interior, which is said to be its senior lawyer, and might merit a more specific category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Cultural organisations based in Bangladesh

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Cultural organisations based in Bangladesh to Category:Cultural organisations in Bangladesh‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Clearly created by accident. I've moved the contents to the longer established category Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural question why open a CFD when you have already created a fait accompli? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't create it. I thought I should ask permission before it was deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge – the country parent is Category:Organisations based in Bangladesh and so Category:Cultural organisations based in Bangladesh is correct. Oculi (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The other parent is Category:Cultural organizations by country most of which are not "based". Rathfelder (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because the cfd decision to rename everything in Category:Organizations by country to use 'based in' was not followed up throughout the subcats. Oculi (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment When I created the Category I was not aware that Category:Cultural organisations in Bangladesh existed. I have no opposition to merger. I leave it upto other users to decide which Category to merge into.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:CTrain stations combined

 * 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:CTrain stations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting ctrain stations combined


 * Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what function this category serves, the only thing these stations have in common are they are served by both the red and the blue line, since Ctrain stations are not categorized by which line they serve, keeping this category is inconsistent with existing categorization practices. kelapstick(bainuu) 16:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree But if you had bothered to read the articles you would clearly see that the category is for paired station articles where one serves eastbound and the other westbound. Perhaps they should be broken up. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read the articles. Which is why I find this to be unclear what it is grouping. If it's used for paired stations, there are two issues, First City Hall station (Calgary) isn't a paired station, other than it used to be paired with Olympic plaza? Second, if it is for paired stations, it should be a hidden category, because more Wikipedia-related than CTrain related (meta-grouping of articles rather than defining a specific category of station). At a minimum, if kept, it would need to be renamed (maybe to paired CTrain stations). Maybe the paired stations should be split, particularly if there is nothing "officially" that pairs them in this way, however that isn't a discussion for CfD. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I agree. The end! Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural question please can you clarify what you have agreed about the fate of this category. Keep, delete, or rename? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * I think there is consensus about removing this category, however it should be merged to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Transmisogyny

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting transmisogyny


 * Nominator's rationale: Category with no parent article, because reliable sources typically don't use the term. Redundant to Category:Transphobia, which, unlike this, is well supported. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as eponymous category to well-sourced parent article. James (talk/contribs) 14:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a relatively recent neologism, as the term was coined in 2007. Are there sufficient related topics to sustain a category? Currently it seems underpopulated. Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Thai male kickboxers

 * 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 but purge to Muay Thai as sub-categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting thai male kickboxers
 * (Also Category:Thai female kickboxers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Not quite sure about the best course of action, but as it stands Category:Thai male kickboxers is wholly redundant to Category:Thai Muay Thai practitioners. As the main Muay Thai category tree isn't organised as a subcat of kickboxing, I understand that the kickboxing tree is supposed to be used in the narrow sense, i.e. modern forms explicitly referred to as "kickboxing" and not including traditional forms such as Muay Thai. As such, all the articles currently in Category:Thai male kickboxers would appear to be miscategorised. The Muay Thai practitioners category isn't currently subcategorised by gender, but if needed, it'd probably be better to diffuse Category:Thai male kickboxers Category:Thai Muay Thai practitioners into a new Category:Thai male Muay Thai practitioners subcat rather than renaming this one, which is less complete. (Also related is Category:Thai female kickboxers, but it only has two members and could be manually dealt with once consensus is established for this one.) Paul_012 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Edited - sorry for the confusion. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (as category creator). I created Category:Thai male kickboxers & Category:Thai female kickboxers solely to split Category:Thai kickboxers by gender in a gender-divided sport. I have no knowledge of the relationship between kickboxing and Muay Thai in Muay Thailand, so I have no view on the proposed change, so long as the gender  split is retained. If @Paul_012 also intends to move the contents of Category:Thai female kickboxers in the same fashion, it should also be tagged and listed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tagged. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – nearly all the articles use the phrase "is a Thai Muay Thai kickboxer" which would support placing Muay Thai practitioners as a subcat of kickboxers (which would solve this problem, and perhaps create other problems). Category:Thai Muay Thai practitioners should in any case be split into genders. Oculi (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Until a better solution than "Delete" and "Not quite sure about the best course of action" can be provided and discussed. Please demonstrate the proposed category structure in a bulleted list. Hmlarson (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmlarson, what I meant is that it's open to suggestions. Do you have anything specific in mind? As mentioned above, all members are already also under Category:Thai Muay Thai practitioners, which should be split by gender, so providing we carry out the split, there's no information lost from deleting this category. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing something if you think no information is lost deleting not one but TWO categories. For example, if I want to find Female Muay Thai practitioners from Thailand and Female kickboxers from Thailand, I see nothing in your proposal other than DELETING "Thai female kickboxers". Please provide information on how this loss of information will be preserved by providing a proposed category tree. The way it is currently worded presents a very vague result. Hmlarson (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did say "providing we carry out the split". There seems to be consensus that Category:Muay Thai practitioners should be spit by gender in any case. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Purge and remove people from this category who are Muay Thai practitioners but not kickboxers. If in the end that leaves the category empty, it can be deleted per C1. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did go through the entire category, and as far as I could determine, all of them are practitioners of Muay Thai and not other forms of kickboxing, so the cat would need to be emptied anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Taking another look at the Kickboxing article, and various online sources, I'm tending to agree with Oculi's suggestion that the Kickboxing tree should reworked to include Muay Thai, and be more specific as to what it means. It should probably be subcategorised into specific styles, i.e. Japanese Kickboxing, Dutch Kickboxing, and American Kickboxing, so it's clear that the parent is a container category. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Category:Thai female Muay Thai practitioners has been created. The articles now under Category:Thai Muay Thai practitioners should be moved to Category:Thai male Muay Thai practitioners. It would be nice if the bot could handle this. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a defined and relevant category. No opposition to development of the Muay Thai form as a child category to kickboxing. I also see no problem in the current setup of having a by nationality for the high level discipline and top level categories for the various forms of the sport. A similar arrangement works fine for boxing and its weightclasses, for example. SFB 01:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Masnavi (Rumi)

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Masnavi (Rumi) to Category:Works by Rumi and Category:Persian poems
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Flag design terms

 * 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 manually to Category:Vexillology and/or Category:Vexillography. Pinging the participants to do the merge: . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Flag design terms to Category:Flag design features
 * Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not about terms but about things the terms refer to. Nikola (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment and alternative suggestion. That's news to me. What, then, to do with the long standing, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ... Far more categories use the more grammatically pleasing form of "Foo terminology", however, and since the current category includes more than just "features" (e.g., British ensign), I'd suggest moving this to . Grutness... wha?   10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Depending on case to case basis. For example, is really about terms,  has both concepts and terms of Aikido, while  is just about concepts. Nikola (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, most previous "terminology" discussions have led to an upmerge, basically per rationale of nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_26
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_6
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_19
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_21
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_27
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_30

 Relisted from CFD 2018 January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose I often work on articles on specific words and terms, and I am not familiar with any such rule. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there are articles about words and terms, but these articles are not about words, but about concepts. Nikola (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Relisting note: the nominator had not tagged the category.  I have tagged it for this relisting. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the linking factor in all of the discussions mentioned by Marcocapelle is that they were about concepts, not merely terms. For example, British ensign is discussed as a type of flag feature rather than the usage of the term "British ensign". In this case, the merge targets would be Category:Vexillology and Category:Vexillography. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (either rename or merge) - these articles (e.g. the one beginning "A diplomatic flag is a flag used ...") are articles about things, not articles about terms. Categorize by characteristics of the article's topic, not by characteristics of the article's title. Where we do have an article that really is about a term we usually/always have a separate article about the thing (e.g. Nigger / African Americans, Fuck / Sexual intercourse, BRD / Germany). The category should also be purged - e.g. the subcats removed. DexDor(talk) 08:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:12th-century medieval Latin literature

 * 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 both. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:12th-century medieval Latin literature to Category:12th-century Latin literature
 * Propose renaming Category:13th-century medieval Latin literature to Category:13th-century Latin literature
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, adding "medieval" to a 12th- or 13th-century category is clearly redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * rename "Medieval" is redundant here. All 12th-century and 13th century texts are considered medieval. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename. Redundant. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.