Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 22



Category:Human male conflict over females

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. The editor who created this category and its predecessor has been warned. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting human male conflict over females


 * Nominator's rationale: Not quite sure what this category is trying to capture but the title is pretty weird. Is this supposed to be about instances where human males battled with human females as the prize for the winner? In any case, the contents of the category are all over the place. For example, I just don't see any category that would in any natural way link comfort women, prehistoric warfare and Viking expansion. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Human behaviour is a too wide topic to categorize every aspect of it. Wonder if there will be in the near future categories like "Human female conflict over males" (a number of "jealuosy murders" and female-vs-female duels can be suitable for) or worst than this, "Human (male or female) conflict over animals" (PETA? Animal Liberation Front?) ;).---Darius (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Has no use and is an OR magnet. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly speedy as a deliberate re-creation of a category recently deleted. DexDor(talk) 06:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. This diff shows that the creator of the category was well aware of the initial CfD. Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

.... and warn @TrynaMakeADollar not to try an end-run around a consensus decision. That sort of conduct leads to a WP:Block. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator's rationale. Just to explain, the category was trying to put together instances of males fighting each other to gain access to females. Anyways, I'm ok with the categories being deleted now. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G4 as a re-creation of the cat deleted at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_11.


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

Category:Female bisexuality

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting female bisexuality


 * Propose deleting male bisexuality


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, none of the (few) articles is specifically about bisexuality. There is no need to merge, the subcategories are already somewhere else in the Bisexuality tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. Crossroads -talk- 15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support deletion and note that Category:Bisexual male culture and Category:Bisexual female culture are already in the Category:Bisexuality subtree. (Although I'm a little skeptical about Category:Bisexual culture being a subcat of Category:Bisexual community. I'd rather have it as a direct subcat of Category:Bisexuality.) Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (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:Forgotten Realms deities

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Not merged Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Forgotten Realms deities to Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities
 * Nominator's rationale: The category structure is now at a point where the arbitrary splits are unnecessary for organization. There is nothing distinctive enough about the campaign settings in relation to the dieties to need to categorize the characters in such a way. TTN (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclined to oppose, since in fact "the category structure is now at a point where the ... splits" are maintained; see Category:Dungeons & Dragons characters. I know enough about the subject to know that these splits are in fact reader-helpful, as the campaign settings are in most cases completely separate from each other; they are different fictional continuities that just share most of a gaming rule-system, aside from some crossover points.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am not aware of any recent consensus in category space which renders a well-defined subcategory 'unnecessary'. A split into a sub-genre is not 'arbitrary'. Oculi (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


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

Category:Tartans

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: split rather than rename. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Tartans to Category:Tartan
 * Nominator's rationale: As a mass noun, tartan refers to the fabric/design style and to the general concept, while the count noun tartans means specific setts of tartan (e.g. various particular clan tartans). While the category does have articles and subcategories of specific tartans, it also encompasses the more conceptual sense, as does the main article, Tartan. Many of the article entries are on particular (often simple) of anonymous folk tartan, such as Border tartan, Sillitoe tartan, and Hodden; these are simply tartan (i.e., chequed-pattern cloth), they are not tartans in the representative and count-noun sense, like Royal Stewart tartan and Black Watch tartan. The category also contains things pertaining to the overall history of tartan, such as Vestiarium Scoticum, Category:Tartan organisations, Category:Tartan databases, etc., which are not tartans but are within the conceptual scope of tartan. Notice how their names would get mangled if pluralised: *Category:Tartans organisations, etc. (it's a bit Gollum-esque: "Tartans organisationses, Precious" ha ha))  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rescope. Keep the current category but create as a parent cat. Then move the articles which aren't about specific setts into the parent. Grutness...  wha?   03:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This is the correct collective noun for all the clan (and other) tartans. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * is the alternative of User:Grutness an acceptable compromise? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a perfectly fine solution, as long people do not object to there being an additional category layer. (I'm a fan of such specificity, but not everyone is, which is why I didn't make that proposal in the first place. I sometimes get too much push back on such ideas, as I learned the hard way in a few categories.) And Peterkingiron, did you even read the nomination statement? "This is the correct collective noun for all the clan (and other) tartans" isn't responsive to it in any way, and assumes that the contents of the the category are simply tartans in the count-noun sense, when the entire point of the nom is that they are not. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Category:American Marine Corps personnel of the Vietnam War

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American Marine Corps personnel of the Vietnam War to Category:United States Marine Corps personnel of the Vietnam War
 * Nominator's rationale: Request renaming to fix incorrect name of the military branch. Senator2029 “Talk”   04:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support To match the main article United States Marine Corps. Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Support Will change from standard naming convention per Category:United States Marine Corps personnel by war as well as sister services Category:American army personnel by war, Category:American air force personnel by war and Category:American naval personnel by war. Will support only if broader changes are made to stay consistent. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should one category say "air force" (lower case), but another say "Marine Corps" (with the "M" and "C" in upper case)? DexDor(talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we change the scheme, in an effort to streamline cat names, I recommend considering just Marines, as in American Marines of the Vietnam War or United States Marines of the Vietnam War, either cap or not cap for Marines. Marines is an appropriate collective term for the personnel serving in the Corps, both officers and enlisted. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency with the article United States Marine Corps. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Capitals00 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2020 (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:Meteorological organizations

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Reverse merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Meteorological organizations to Category:Meteorological institutions and stations
 * Nominator's rationale: Can't see what the difference is supposed to be. Originally created as a redirect to the suggested target, then populated by indef-blocked user Look2See1. Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Merge or reverse merge, no clear distinction between these two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge for consistency with parent categories which use "organizations". fgnievinski (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is a distinction as there are organizations which are not institutions or stations (eg societies). The category inclusion is the wrong way round: Category:Meteorological organizations should be a parent of Category:Meteorological institutions and stations. Category:Meteorological organizations should certainly be retained. Oculi (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and restructure the hierarchy per Oculi. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ə XPLICIT 00:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have restructured the hierarchy, which now looks much better IMO. I am wondering whether the initial intention was to capture 'institutes' (as in ) rather than the more general institutions (most of Category:Meteorological institutions affiliated with universities are called 'the XXX Institute'). Oculi (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While the hierarchy is better, it is still not clear what the added value of the "institutions" category layer is. For example, what makes government agencies (the subcats in institutions) an institution (or institute)? And why is Category:World Meteorological Organization not in the institutions subcat? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * True.  Upmerge Category:Meteorological institutions and stations to Category:Meteorological organizations.  (Category:Meteorological stations is fine.) Oculi (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm with Oculi on this one. Upmerge Category:Meteorological institutions and stations to Category:Meteorological organizations. Pichpich (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed: Reverse merge per Oculi. For my reference: if they are merged, the Wikidata items &  would then deserve further attention. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:12, 27 March 2020 (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.