Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

Category:Call of Duty Championships

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 17#Category:Call of Duty Championships

Category:Health in Bristol

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. MER-C 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about healthcare. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:38, 9 November 2019 (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:First Nations Writers Stubs

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. After manually applying the appropriate other categories as discussed. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improperly constituted categories, not created through the proper stub-category creation process. Stub categories are not supposed to be created until there are around 60 suitable stub articles to justify one, and have to be proposed for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals first -- but this comprises one subcategory with just three people in it and one with just eight, so even if they were merged into the parent category it would still fail the 60-article test.
Secondly, stub categories must be paired with stub templates, and must be artificially transcluded by the application of those templates and never directly placed on the articles as standalone category declarations -- but there's no template here, and instead the creator has just been going around directly adding the stub categories themselves to articles that aren't even necessarily always actual stubs.
Thirdly, even if they were to be kept, they're all improperly named; the parent is incorrectly capitalized, and the novelist and poet categories would have to be "novelist stubs" and "poet stubs", not "novelists stub" or "poets stub". And they've done all this "in preparation for editing events on First Nations and Indigenous writers", without specifying the details of any such editing events that have actually been organized and planned -- and even if an event is planned, every editathon does not automatically require its own dedicated stub categories for the subject. We have many, many other ways in which the articles that fall within the purview of an editing event can be grouped (WikiProject categories on talk pages, tasklists in projectspace or userspace, etc.), so dedicated stub categories are not automatically necessary enough to override the regular rules around them just because somebody's planning a public editing event.
If the creator wants to try again, they're welcome to identify 60 stub articles about First Nations writers and then propose the appropriate category and template for creation at WSS/P -- but even if a general writers category is justified, there aren't enough stub articles about First Nations writers to require separate subcategories for novelists and poets on top of it. The whole point of the process and size restrictions on the creation of stub categories is precisely so that people don't overcategorize stub types into overly narrow WP:SMALLCATs like this, so the creator isn't free to just ignore the proper process. Bearcat ( talk) 17:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not really meant for individual people (although I see that it has been getting used that way in some instances). And even if it were to be used that way here, it still wouldn't exactly be a normal merge since the category declarations on the articles would have to be replaced with that category's template rather than substituting the category name as a category. Bearcat ( talk) 23:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that would be a more appropriate target. Somebody should probably tackle getting the misfiled biographical articles that are in the general "First Nations stubs" moved there too. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (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:Vice-mayors

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 03:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Vice-mayor" and "deputy mayor" are not different roles, but simply different terms for the same role -- so they don't need two separate categories to exist alongside each other. To be honest, it's also questionable whether either category actually needs to exist at all -- deputy/vice mayor is not an inherently notable role in and of itself, so it's not really a WP:DEFINING characteristic of anybody's notability: the people filed here all have some other, stronger notability claim than having been deputy or vice mayor of a town or city per se. (But there are numerous "deputy/vice mayors of Specific City" subcategories that would also have to be considered with it, so it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to just delete it without considering all of the subcategories.) At the very least, however, we definitely don't need two different category trees here just because different places use different words for what's fundamentally the same job. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 9 November 2019 (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: Gando Massacre and Kanto Massacre

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 with cleanup. MER-C 11:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have one article about a massacre each, and do not justify a separate category. The category subcategories should be transferred to the article. Hugo999 ( talk) 03:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Articles that are not about the category topic should be removed from the category. Biographies should be listified in the main article and removed from the category. That still leaves only the eponymous articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Preparation needed before merger for Kanto, there are two articles - one called incident and the other massacre, both are brief and apparently overlapping. The best solution is probably for these to be merged and the biographies listified in it. The Gando category and its main article have two associated battles. I am not clear from the articles how they are all connected, but the solution is probably to add the other battle to the see also items in the main article and then merge that per nom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge, with whatever cleanup/prep is needed (per Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 16 November 2019 (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:Fictional gay males

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. MER-C 10:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:, "Gay men" rather than "gay males" is the standard usage on Wikipedia. Ditto for bisexual men and women. The parent categories are already Category:Fictional LGBT men and Category:Fictional LGBT women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Just fix it as laid out by Oculi. WP:Common sense.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support, +comment: "Male" and "Female" do exist as nouns, but feel unnatural when used in that way in reference to people. If there is no support for the "men"/"women" construction, I would suggest "men and boys"/"women and girls" or "male characters"/"female characters".-- Alexandra IDV talk 22:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Ideally if someone volunteers splitting these categories along the lines of User:Oculi then feel free to. But if not, it is also not a big problem to leave everything in its current state. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose While with fictional characters the line between men and boys is a bit easier to navigate, this looks like a mess waiting to happen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There is no need to split and as can be seen in this discussion it will be confusing with some people thinking the male category would have boys and non-humans. Having a separate category for boys and non-humans is a case of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I'm also against the original rename proposal since

calling the category men when some of the items aren't men would be inappropriate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2019 (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:Gay male BDSM

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. MER-C 11:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category name is redundant. "Gay BDSM" suffices. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" does not necessarily mean "male-only". While the usage as a term inclusive of both women and men has become less common, it is still a current one, especially as a verbal shortcut (over the multisyllabic initialism LGBTQ), as in "gay rights", [2] [3] "gay marriage", [4] [5] or "gay agenda", [6] [7] each of which refer to people of any gender. If it's "established" on Wikipedia that "gay" always refers to men, then Wikipedia is mistaken. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Peruse the LGBT and Gay categories. "Gay" is used for categories relating to gay/homosexual men. Lesbian is used for categories relating to homosexual women. LGBT is used as the umbrella for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
So you think that mistakes should be automatically propagated and compounded? - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I would agree with nom that consistency would be desirable here. I would also say that the use of "gay" to refer to men alone is fairly well-established not just in existing category names, but also in article naming. e.g. Gay sexual practices, Gay literature, Gay anthem, Gay pornography. But there also counterexamples where it's used to refer to gay men and lesbians e.g. Gay bashing, Gay pride, Gay media, Russian gay propaganda law. Of the articles specifically about gay men, the addition of a "male" qualifier is pretty rare: Gay male teen fiction, Gay male speech, and List of gay men's choruses were the only ones I could find. So I'm leaning support on this and the related noms below. Colin M ( talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • User:Gleeanon409, I'm aware of the multiple uses of "gay". This isn't a "campaign" to "enforce a strict definition", it's an attempt at consistency in category naming. As of now, there's a mishmash. Most categories use "gay". A handful use "gay male" or "gay men's". Are you proposing that ALL gay men-related categories be renamed from "gay" to "gay male"? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: Like I stated here, gay can also apply to women. It can also apply to non-binary people who identify as gay. Yes, the term is significantly more commonly applied to men, but we don't want these category titles to have any ambiguity. If the category is about gay men, the title should not be ambiguous on this in any way. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The second point is actually a good reason in favor of the proposal: there is no reason to exclude non-binary people who identify as gay from this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 16 November 2019 (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:Gay male pornography

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. MER-C 11:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category names are redundant. " Gay pornography" suffices and is already the name of the main article. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Either way, it should be consistent. The usage for homosexual men should either be "gay" across the board or "gay male"/"gay men's" across the board. We need consistency. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Are you unconcerned about the inconsistency of the categories? The main article is gay pornography. The parent cat uses gay male. The subcats use either gay or gay male. It should be one naming pattern across the board. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ User:Gleeanon409, what possible use is it to have inconsistent usage for a single topic? Why have "gay" for the main article, "gay male" for the main category, and a mix of both for the subcats? What's the logic in that? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Gay male pornography is specific, renaming to just Gay pornography easily can mean lesbian pornography as well as any variation of LGBTQ pornography. Making it more vague is not improving anything. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Renaming from ‘gay’ to

‘gay male’ would be better IMHO, even if gay is well understood to some as meaning just men, it’s not universally understood or accepted. ‘Gay male’ is unambiguous. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: Like I stated here, gay can also apply to women. It can also apply to non-binary people who identify as gay. Yes, the term is significantly more commonly applied to men, but we don't want these category titles to have any ambiguity. If the category is about gay men, the title should not be ambiguous on this in any way. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C, and per gay pornography article . Oculi ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 16 November 2019 (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:Gay (male) media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to remove the parentheses, no consensus to rename as nominated. MER-C 11:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category names are redundant. "Gay media"/"Gay literature"/etc. suffices. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 19:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as above. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 06:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note, Even if this category change proposal is to be voted down, there's absolutely no reason for the parentheses around the word "male". Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose on "Gay media." Support on "Gay male media." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support - WP:C2C: subcats of Category:Gay culture. Oculi ( talk) 18:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, but instead normalize to "Gay male" without the pointless parentheses. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 16 November 2019 (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:Imdadkhani gharana

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. MER-C 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed at Speedy page as pasted in box below. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.firstpost.com/living/the-musician-and-his-art-deepak-rajas-essays-on-hindustani-music-deserve-serious-consideration-6480511.html
  2. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/infinite-cartwheels-festival-a-platform-for-diversity/article23527036.ece
  3. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/how-a-100-yr-old-instrument-is-wowing-music-lovers/articleshow/68540683.cms
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I do support this one myself. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support on a WP:AGF basis. Would rather have seen a WP:RM at the article, but if no one's got a sources-based rather than speedy-technicality-based objection, let it proceed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 16 November 2019 (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:Marvel Comics Heliopolitans

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 03:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Populated mostly by redirects, only three articles. None of the articles seem to even pass GNG. The redirects should be removed. TTN ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support. We don't need any fanwanky mega-subcategorization (says the guy who only last year finally got rid of those 15,000 comics in storage. >;-)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_9&oldid=930850703"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

Category:Call of Duty Championships

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 17#Category:Call of Duty Championships

Category:Health in Bristol

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. MER-C 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about healthcare. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:38, 9 November 2019 (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:First Nations Writers Stubs

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. After manually applying the appropriate other categories as discussed. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improperly constituted categories, not created through the proper stub-category creation process. Stub categories are not supposed to be created until there are around 60 suitable stub articles to justify one, and have to be proposed for creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals first -- but this comprises one subcategory with just three people in it and one with just eight, so even if they were merged into the parent category it would still fail the 60-article test.
Secondly, stub categories must be paired with stub templates, and must be artificially transcluded by the application of those templates and never directly placed on the articles as standalone category declarations -- but there's no template here, and instead the creator has just been going around directly adding the stub categories themselves to articles that aren't even necessarily always actual stubs.
Thirdly, even if they were to be kept, they're all improperly named; the parent is incorrectly capitalized, and the novelist and poet categories would have to be "novelist stubs" and "poet stubs", not "novelists stub" or "poets stub". And they've done all this "in preparation for editing events on First Nations and Indigenous writers", without specifying the details of any such editing events that have actually been organized and planned -- and even if an event is planned, every editathon does not automatically require its own dedicated stub categories for the subject. We have many, many other ways in which the articles that fall within the purview of an editing event can be grouped (WikiProject categories on talk pages, tasklists in projectspace or userspace, etc.), so dedicated stub categories are not automatically necessary enough to override the regular rules around them just because somebody's planning a public editing event.
If the creator wants to try again, they're welcome to identify 60 stub articles about First Nations writers and then propose the appropriate category and template for creation at WSS/P -- but even if a general writers category is justified, there aren't enough stub articles about First Nations writers to require separate subcategories for novelists and poets on top of it. The whole point of the process and size restrictions on the creation of stub categories is precisely so that people don't overcategorize stub types into overly narrow WP:SMALLCATs like this, so the creator isn't free to just ignore the proper process. Bearcat ( talk) 17:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not really meant for individual people (although I see that it has been getting used that way in some instances). And even if it were to be used that way here, it still wouldn't exactly be a normal merge since the category declarations on the articles would have to be replaced with that category's template rather than substituting the category name as a category. Bearcat ( talk) 23:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that would be a more appropriate target. Somebody should probably tackle getting the misfiled biographical articles that are in the general "First Nations stubs" moved there too. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (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:Vice-mayors

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 03:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Vice-mayor" and "deputy mayor" are not different roles, but simply different terms for the same role -- so they don't need two separate categories to exist alongside each other. To be honest, it's also questionable whether either category actually needs to exist at all -- deputy/vice mayor is not an inherently notable role in and of itself, so it's not really a WP:DEFINING characteristic of anybody's notability: the people filed here all have some other, stronger notability claim than having been deputy or vice mayor of a town or city per se. (But there are numerous "deputy/vice mayors of Specific City" subcategories that would also have to be considered with it, so it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to just delete it without considering all of the subcategories.) At the very least, however, we definitely don't need two different category trees here just because different places use different words for what's fundamentally the same job. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 9 November 2019 (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: Gando Massacre and Kanto Massacre

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 with cleanup. MER-C 11:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have one article about a massacre each, and do not justify a separate category. The category subcategories should be transferred to the article. Hugo999 ( talk) 03:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Articles that are not about the category topic should be removed from the category. Biographies should be listified in the main article and removed from the category. That still leaves only the eponymous articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Preparation needed before merger for Kanto, there are two articles - one called incident and the other massacre, both are brief and apparently overlapping. The best solution is probably for these to be merged and the biographies listified in it. The Gando category and its main article have two associated battles. I am not clear from the articles how they are all connected, but the solution is probably to add the other battle to the see also items in the main article and then merge that per nom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge, with whatever cleanup/prep is needed (per Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 16 November 2019 (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:Fictional gay males

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. MER-C 10:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:, "Gay men" rather than "gay males" is the standard usage on Wikipedia. Ditto for bisexual men and women. The parent categories are already Category:Fictional LGBT men and Category:Fictional LGBT women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Just fix it as laid out by Oculi. WP:Common sense.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support, +comment: "Male" and "Female" do exist as nouns, but feel unnatural when used in that way in reference to people. If there is no support for the "men"/"women" construction, I would suggest "men and boys"/"women and girls" or "male characters"/"female characters".-- Alexandra IDV talk 22:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Ideally if someone volunteers splitting these categories along the lines of User:Oculi then feel free to. But if not, it is also not a big problem to leave everything in its current state. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose While with fictional characters the line between men and boys is a bit easier to navigate, this looks like a mess waiting to happen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There is no need to split and as can be seen in this discussion it will be confusing with some people thinking the male category would have boys and non-humans. Having a separate category for boys and non-humans is a case of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I'm also against the original rename proposal since

calling the category men when some of the items aren't men would be inappropriate. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2019 (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:Gay male BDSM

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. MER-C 11:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category name is redundant. "Gay BDSM" suffices. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" does not necessarily mean "male-only". While the usage as a term inclusive of both women and men has become less common, it is still a current one, especially as a verbal shortcut (over the multisyllabic initialism LGBTQ), as in "gay rights", [2] [3] "gay marriage", [4] [5] or "gay agenda", [6] [7] each of which refer to people of any gender. If it's "established" on Wikipedia that "gay" always refers to men, then Wikipedia is mistaken. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Peruse the LGBT and Gay categories. "Gay" is used for categories relating to gay/homosexual men. Lesbian is used for categories relating to homosexual women. LGBT is used as the umbrella for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
So you think that mistakes should be automatically propagated and compounded? - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I would agree with nom that consistency would be desirable here. I would also say that the use of "gay" to refer to men alone is fairly well-established not just in existing category names, but also in article naming. e.g. Gay sexual practices, Gay literature, Gay anthem, Gay pornography. But there also counterexamples where it's used to refer to gay men and lesbians e.g. Gay bashing, Gay pride, Gay media, Russian gay propaganda law. Of the articles specifically about gay men, the addition of a "male" qualifier is pretty rare: Gay male teen fiction, Gay male speech, and List of gay men's choruses were the only ones I could find. So I'm leaning support on this and the related noms below. Colin M ( talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • User:Gleeanon409, I'm aware of the multiple uses of "gay". This isn't a "campaign" to "enforce a strict definition", it's an attempt at consistency in category naming. As of now, there's a mishmash. Most categories use "gay". A handful use "gay male" or "gay men's". Are you proposing that ALL gay men-related categories be renamed from "gay" to "gay male"? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: Like I stated here, gay can also apply to women. It can also apply to non-binary people who identify as gay. Yes, the term is significantly more commonly applied to men, but we don't want these category titles to have any ambiguity. If the category is about gay men, the title should not be ambiguous on this in any way. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The second point is actually a good reason in favor of the proposal: there is no reason to exclude non-binary people who identify as gay from this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 16 November 2019 (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:Gay male pornography

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. MER-C 11:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category names are redundant. " Gay pornography" suffices and is already the name of the main article. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Either way, it should be consistent. The usage for homosexual men should either be "gay" across the board or "gay male"/"gay men's" across the board. We need consistency. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Are you unconcerned about the inconsistency of the categories? The main article is gay pornography. The parent cat uses gay male. The subcats use either gay or gay male. It should be one naming pattern across the board. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ User:Gleeanon409, what possible use is it to have inconsistent usage for a single topic? Why have "gay" for the main article, "gay male" for the main category, and a mix of both for the subcats? What's the logic in that? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Gay male pornography is specific, renaming to just Gay pornography easily can mean lesbian pornography as well as any variation of LGBTQ pornography. Making it more vague is not improving anything. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 06:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Renaming from ‘gay’ to

‘gay male’ would be better IMHO, even if gay is well understood to some as meaning just men, it’s not universally understood or accepted. ‘Gay male’ is unambiguous. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: Like I stated here, gay can also apply to women. It can also apply to non-binary people who identify as gay. Yes, the term is significantly more commonly applied to men, but we don't want these category titles to have any ambiguity. If the category is about gay men, the title should not be ambiguous on this in any way. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C, and per gay pornography article . Oculi ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 16 November 2019 (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:Gay (male) media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to remove the parentheses, no consensus to rename as nominated. MER-C 11:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category names are redundant. "Gay media"/"Gay literature"/etc. suffices. It has been established on Wikipedia that "gay" is used for homosexual men and "lesbian" is used for homosexual women. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 19:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as above. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. "Gay" is routinely used both within and outside LGBTQ communities as shorthand for the entire spectrum, if it’s such a strict rule on Wikipedia it’s because campaigns like this to enforce a strict definition This may be a solution looking for a problem. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I’m stating that usage of the word itself is not consistent, across many cultures and decades. There is no one defined usage for the entire world and that’s okay. It’s foolish to try to impose a set of usage rules in this way, and does a disservice to the project. Instead try to find solutions that embrace the inconsistencies. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 06:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note, Even if this category change proposal is to be voted down, there's absolutely no reason for the parentheses around the word "male". Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am wholly neutral on whether the article and the entire category tree should be changed from "gay" to "gay male" but as long as that has not happened yet it does not make sense that just a few categories have a deviant name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose on "Gay media." Support on "Gay male media." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support - WP:C2C: subcats of Category:Gay culture. Oculi ( talk) 18:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, but instead normalize to "Gay male" without the pointless parentheses. There's an activistic position that gay "should" refer just to men, but this is hardly universal even within LGBT+ circles, nor (more importantly) does it reflect the reality of general English usage, which is what matters more here. These are article categories, and are thus reader-facing content that needs to match reader expectations and deal with ambiguity for actual readers, not just for entrenched soapboxing camps of editors. If we have any category consistency problems, they should be corrected in the direction of increased clarity for readers, over concision. WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE trump WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The naming criteria are in a specific order for a reason.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 16 November 2019 (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:Imdadkhani gharana

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. MER-C 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed at Speedy page as pasted in box below. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.firstpost.com/living/the-musician-and-his-art-deepak-rajas-essays-on-hindustani-music-deserve-serious-consideration-6480511.html
  2. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/infinite-cartwheels-festival-a-platform-for-diversity/article23527036.ece
  3. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/home/sunday-times/how-a-100-yr-old-instrument-is-wowing-music-lovers/articleshow/68540683.cms
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I do support this one myself. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support on a WP:AGF basis. Would rather have seen a WP:RM at the article, but if no one's got a sources-based rather than speedy-technicality-based objection, let it proceed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 16 November 2019 (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:Marvel Comics Heliopolitans

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 03:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Populated mostly by redirects, only three articles. None of the articles seem to even pass GNG. The redirects should be removed. TTN ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support. We don't need any fanwanky mega-subcategorization (says the guy who only last year finally got rid of those 15,000 comics in storage. >;-)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_9&oldid=930850703"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE