Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 2

February 2

Category:Jonathan Groff

• Propose deleting Category:Jonathan Groff - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Category for only the eponymous article and one image file is completely unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{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)

Category:Aeni theme songs

• Propose deleting Category:Aeni theme songs - Template:Lc1
  

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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{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)

Category:MDA Labor Day Telethon broadcasters

• Propose deleting Category:MDA Labor Day Telethon broadcasters - Template:Lc1
  

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)

Category:WPIX

• Propose deleting Category:WPIX - Template:Lc1
  

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 Category:Local children's television programming in the United States and Category:Local music television shows in the United States, 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)

Category:American solicitors

• 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)

Category:Cultural organisations based in Bangladesh

• 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)

Category:CTrain stations combined

• Propose deleting Category:CTrain stations combined - Template:Lc1
  

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)

Category:Transmisogyny

• Propose deleting Category:Transmisogyny - Template:Lc1
  

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)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Thai male kickboxers

• Propose deleting Category:Thai male kickboxers - Template:Lc1

(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 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)

• 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tagged. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)

Category:Masnavi (Rumi)

• 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)

Category:Flag design terms

• 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 Category:Slang terms for women, Category:Obsolete medical terms, Category:Libertarian terms, Category:Supply chain management terms, Category:Colloquial terms, Category:Sami language terms, Category:Insurance terms, Category:Marathi terms, Category:Microbiology terms, Category:Show business terms, Category:Solar terms, Category:Japanese sex terms, Category:Latter Day Saint terms, Category:Polling terms, Category:Aikido terms and principles, Category:Japanese entertainment terms, Category:Auditing terms, Category:Japanese religions terms, Category:Japanese cuisine terms, Category:Japanese historical terms, Category:Terms in literary theory... 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 Category:Flag design terminology. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Depending on case to case basis. For example, Category:Slang terms for women is really about terms, Category:Aikido terms and principles has both concepts and terms of Aikido, while Category:Solar terms 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)

• 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)

Relisted from CFD 2018 January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting note: the nominator @Nikola Smolenski had not tagged the category. I have tagged it[1] for this relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (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)

Category:12th-century medieval Latin literature

• 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)