Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 18
October 20 >

October 19

Category:Classical Marxist parties in the United States

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's only on page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (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:Video games by narrative genre

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated for merging but was opposed, however, upon looking at the previous discussion, it wasn't opposed with righteous consent. Dimadick just said "Oppose, Genres are not limited to common themes, but also to the tone of the work." and that lead to the closure. He provide much information, it is better

This category is currently just a mess of content. I understand how it is an attempt to create a category containing video games with THEMES based on the genres of film and literature, but it still very insulting to what video game genres really are. For instance Western (genre) video games do not have their own article as their not their own thing, it isn't considered a genre and never will be, it did not originate in video games.

Some of the things in this category have still been cited as a genre to a degree, including entries with an article:

Christmas film is a redirect to Christmas by medium
- Christmas films are clearly a theme rather than a genre, this is because their just defined by a specific annual Christian celebration that they are about, rather than a style or set of the mood such as comedy or drama.

Please stop and think for a seconds or even minutes if you are willing to just go ahead, oppose this discussion, and then call it a day. It will break my heart if really do such as thing after all the time and effort I went through to write all this.

FINAL NOTE: The only real subcategories of this category which are genres that literarily originated in video games are: Category:Advergames Category:Art games Category:Educational video games (this is clearly distinct from educational TV programs, because it is interactive entertainment software designed to educate the users) QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger per my arguments from the previous discussion. Are you really sure about beating this same horse again after only 2 months? I still believe that there's an important difference between gameplay genres and story genres for video games. Instead of merging, why not just purge what you think are not proper genres from this category? AHI-3000 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger The genre is much wider than a mere "theme". Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current system is not that great. But merging one into the other is not really a solution. Technically, "by theme" means "by feature" - a specific subject that appears in the game, while the word "narrative" means more like plot. The latter would be correct under Category:Fiction genres, which was once merged into "Literature genres". But "fiction genre" is not just about plot, but also about setting or/and visual style. For example, Category:Cyberpunk video games is not necessarily "narrative", but may just be visual theme and setting. "Western video game" is always about setting, but may also be about plot and visual theme. Whereas Category:Horror video games is always about plot and not visual theme or setting. So "narrative genre" should probably be changed to something else. Solidest (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger Narrative genre is distinct from theme, and arguably more fundamental to categorization.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steam tags guideline Actually shows how this should be sorted neatly, and partly matches what I wrote above. A lot of what we put in 'narrative genre' can actually be classified as 'theme' (like Christmas, Detective, Cyberpunk, Satire). And what is in Category:Video games by theme, on the other hand, can hardly be called 'theme'. It's more like 'by topic'. And it actually lists "Holiday-themed games" (that's a theme, isn't it?), "Video games about revenge" (that's a plot, so it's narrative), and so on. It all looks like a big mess, and we should just follow the way it's organised on Steam. The first thing to do would be renaming 'Video games by theme' to 'Video games by feature' and 'Video games by narrative genre' to 'Video games by theme'. Solidest (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2024 (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:All articles with inline parenthetical referencing

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose renaming this category to match the new maintenance tag name,
Template:Inline parenthetical referencing). I tried to change the code to start placing the new category name, but was reverted, so I guess this needs to come to CFD. This will affect around 15 articles in the category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (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:All Elite Wrestling personnel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel

Category:Settlement of the pro-Japanese collaboration

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Category:Settlement of the pro-Japanese collaboration

Alta California before 1824

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Alta California before 1824

Category:People from Akseki

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2024 (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:Wikipedia administrator elections 2024 voter guides

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: withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#What should the page say on voting guides? closed with a consensus that voter guides should not be encouraged or advertised, this category is clearly contrary to that consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same as encouraging it and the close said nothing about "advertised". Since the whole purpose of a guide is that others read them, hiding them away would have the same effect as disallowing them – you've tried getting consensus for that, and it didn't happen. This category is a bare-minimum way of keeping track of what guides have been written, using the same pattern we've used for ArbCom elections for nearly two decades. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voter guides for arbcom have explicit community consensus for their existence and advertising, and other than being an election on en.wp bear almost no similarities to admin elections. Collating voter guides and advertising it on the talk page is very clearly encouraging them - contrary to the explicit consensus not to do that (for all the reasons explained in the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec) The somewhat thin consensus, among the small group organising this election, indeed concerned "What should the page say on voting guides?" - ie Wikipedia: Administrator elections. This category is not, and presumably will not be, mentioned on that page. Meanwhile the election has amazed everybody by attracting 35 candidates, raising different and urgent questions that were not anticipated. Some of the small group of organisers have been ready to adapt to this situation, and some have not. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some have been adapting in manner consistent with the RFC consensus, others have not. The existence of voter guides at all is not compatible with that consensus, but here we are. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell the only mention of voter guides in the original RfC was a comment expressing concern that there'd be enough time to write them. – Joe (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this very useful. C F A 💬 16:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that relevant? Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorization is supposed to help navigation. Which is likely what the user found useful. Mason (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer the question of
    why it is relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep regulatory overreach, strike the post at the relevant talk page if it offends. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question being asked in the discussion in question was limited to the text on the administration elections page. To have a greater scope, such as whether or not a category should exist, a broader consensus should be obtained from the community. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are actually pretty useful, and ultimately to the extent that the guides themselves are allowed to exist, then it is hard to argue that their categorization can't exist? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the same closer's explanation later - My sense is that the main election page may not link to them, but there's nothing stopping an editor from compiling a list of voter guides, or categorising them for organisation and discovery. (emphasis mine). Also courtesy ping @ProcrastinatingReader: as said closer. Soni (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a category could only be “advertising” to the gnomiest of wikignomes. There was consensus against banning or discouraging guides, so people should be allowed to find them if they want to. Toadspike [Talk] 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, I'm not happy about how this worked out, but that doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. We have now had a clarification from the editor who closed the discussion about guides (link), indicating that guides are permitted and can be discussed at places like candidate pages, so it makes sense to have a category for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In no sense can categorization reasonably be considered to be advertising. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no issue with them. The consensus linked to says they aren't encouraged or discouraged. This should mean they shouldn't be deleted. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. I still think this falls too far on the side of encouraging them (and still think that neither encouraging nor discouraging is more lenient than we should be being towards them) but it is clear my view does not accord with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2024 (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:People from Chataignier, Louisiana

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (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:People from Athens, Louisiana

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (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:People from Woodburn, Kentucky

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article contains a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (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:People from Walnut, Illinois

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (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:People from Eastford, Connecticut

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (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:Private schools Northern Beaches Sydney

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Category:Private schools Northern Beaches Sydney

Category:People from Loxley, Alabama

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2024 (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:Ancient Indian monarchies

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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (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:Songwriter unknown

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We name categories as noun phrases. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 19 October 2024 (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:Middle kingdoms of India

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: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is an out-of-process rename. The correct procedure is to nominate Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a duplicate category under a weird name. The target is itself nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Empires and kingdoms of foo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:19, 19 October 2024 (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:Water polo teams in Czechoslovakia

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:Water polo in Czechoslovakia. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's only one page in here Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (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:Czechoslovak water polo people

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2024 (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:3rd-century Vietnamese women

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. isolated category Mason (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (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:Online-only games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Category:Online-only games

Category:Over the Hedge video games

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 to merge/delete. I will remove the entries in
WP:DIFFUSE. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Entirely contained within Category:Over the Hedge. Either we have two categories with three entries or one with six. We do not need the entries in this category to be contained within both. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? If so, merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and purge Category:Over the Hedge of redundant entries. It helpfully diffuses a lot of categories, as Marcocapelle listed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on QuietHere's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (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.

Summer camps in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: reverse merge the first, regular merge the second, keep the third. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category #1: Single-entry category that conflicts with its parent category. Category #2: Redundant category layer that only has a single subcategory. Category #3: Category containing only a single article. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 3 per Zxcvbnm (I also added more entries to the category). Support the other two. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seafood tonight. I didn't tag the category. Apologies. I will tag Category:Summer camps in fiction, for real this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (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.

Comedy directors

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While we're talking about directors versus actors, I feel the same principles as those outlined in
WP:PERFCAT, and which resulted in the deletion of multiple "comedy actors" categories[1] may apply here. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are now discussing all categories. Thoughts on the merits of the proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 19 October 2024 (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:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

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. Thorough discussion, and unlikely a
WP:RELIST will help. I will direct further conversation to Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people#Proposed update to CATLGBT – and if that discussion results in consensus to keep that guidance, please feel free to re-file this CFD. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: A newly created category that is a violation of the last paragraph of WP:CATLGBT, as well as inevitably leading to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY violations.

CATLGBT states, Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Community consensus is clearly against such categories. The existence of this category is an invitation for people to use it to claim as many historical figures as 'maybe homosexual' as possible. It will be a magnet for OR, undue and fringe. A category that's very basis is that something about it's members is disputed cannot be defining. Golikom (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the distinction between historical figures and BLP at least makes OP's critique problematic and the policy worth rethinking. However, I still have rather significant reservations about these categories as formulated at present—they seem overbroad and non-defining to a degree I feel is untenable. Remsense ‥ 论 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this category, I understand the present complaints, and I have been careful to only apply this category to articles which discuss historical interpretations of a subject's sexuality to some considerable length. I think any article with a well-cited subsection or even separate article discussing theories surrounding a subject's sexuality would be worth considering in this category, but I fully understand how the category in it's current design and application could easily be overapplied and misappropriated. I don't believe the solution is deletion, rather it should be stricter enforcement of some standards to define terms like "ambiguous" and "disputed" and how those are separate from "fringe theories." I don't think the LGBT issue should apply here since, like you said, the category does not apply to BLP articles. However, the rule and it's current wording may need to be reassessed to be more specific. It's also worth considering that Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion request for similar reasons. Rylee Amelia (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. But you're not the only person who will use the category. This category is going to be a mess to maintain. Mason (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The temptation to speculate about the sexual orientation of historical figures leads people to suppose that that speculation is OK in an encyclopedia. But looking at, for example, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, what I see is that the lead section decisively dismisses the speculation:

Mainstream historians generally hold that Lincoln was heterosexual, noting that the historical context explains any of the supposed evidence.

Then the remainder of the article, which is well beyond the stub level, discusses various theories that are fringe, or discredited, or whatever.
I realize that for some historical figures, the discussion of their sexuality has risen above fringe level. But from this example, one can see that there is a strong tendency to promote "was he gay or wasn't he" to encyclopedia level just for the pleasure of idol-smashing. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted so should Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. The rationale behind keeping/deleting both are the same. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That category doesn't specify if one is gay/lesbian or bisexual, or another sexuality. Also, currently only the notable cases are in it, many of which "suspected" or "closeted" don't apply because most of them publicly lived this way without such words being coined. But I could argue that some articles within it overlap with Category:Sexuality of individuals. Web-julio (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: doesn't the term ambiguous sexuality have another meaning? At least "sexually ambiguous" technically meant bisexual/asexual, androgynous/gnc/n-b, or intersex in the past. I think we can use synonyms, such as questionable, or dubious. Web-julio (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is a borderline defining characteristic. A list may be better than a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The distinction between historical figures and BLP is relevant only to the first paragraph of
    WP:CATLGBT
    . Anyway, the last paragraph says this:

Categories that make allegations about sexuality—such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay"—are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Why is this not applicable? Why shouldn't I just speedily delete? Why is this discussion going on anyway, and why am I even in it? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That guidance dates from an era when there was a much thinner consensus for any categories for LGBTQ people at all. I don't think it is overkill to have a discussion on the merits every couple decades or so (though participation is of course not mandatory). Given that there was no consensus three years ago to delete Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity, there is a significant question whether a broad interpretation of CATLGBT to long-dead figures still accurately reflects consensus.--Trystan (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance actually dates from 2009. I have not found, and don't know where to look for, discussions that led to that guidance being added, or subsequent discussions of it on its merits. If you are claiming that it is outdated, the burden of proof is on you.
Just looking at the population of the "disputed gender identity" category and this "disputed sexuality" category suggests that they are not closely comparable. For example, disputed gender identity was certainly defining for James Barry (surgeon); as pointed out in the early discussion of that category, it was a major contributor to his notability. But the "disputed sexuality" category is full of celebrities: Joan of Arc, Edward II, Leonardo da Vinci, Frederick the Great, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Alberto Santos-Dumont, J. Edgar Hoover, Adolf Hitler. Ambiguous/disputed sexuality is defining for all these worthies? For any of them? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the sexuality of, e.g.,
WP:DUE. This is an aspect of those subjects that is commonly and consistently addressed by reliable sources, to the extent that the absence of a corresponding category would be a conspicuous deficiency. --Trystan (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not only that. If they were living today, they would be easily categorized as LGBTQ without any necessity for a "disputed category", even when they are anti-LGBTQ themselves, simply because they are in same-sex relationships, being immediately categorized as LGBTQ. Web-julio (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2024 (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:French troubadours

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. Thorough discussion; unlikely a
WP:RELIST would help. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:12th-century French troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from France
Category:13th-century French troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from France
Category:14th-century French troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from France
Category:Spanish troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Spain
Category:12th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:13th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:14th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from Spain
Category:Italian troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Italy
Category:12th-century Italian troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Italy
Category:13th-century Italian troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Italy
Nominator's rationale: The
troubadours wrote in Occitan, not French (or Spanish or Italian). They are defined by the language they used. The current category names are confusing. The equivalent of a troubadour writing in French is a trouvère. The problem is the ambiguity of the terms "French", "Spanish" and "Italian". It is absolutely non-obvious that they are non-linguistic terms in cases like this where they modify a literary term like "troubadour". Srnec (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. I don't think that its non-obvious that these are nationalities. The norm for FOOian occupation is nationality, not language. I think that it would be better to create a language tree. French-language troubadours etc. or Category:12th-century French-language troubadours or something to that effect. And, frankly, I'd rather not have to rewrite the brand new {{Troubadours by nationality and century category header}} Mason (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no French-language troubadours. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what the point I'm trying to make is. There are traveling poets etc in different languages. There's a category called Galician-Portuguese troubadours, that describes both the language and the occupation. That could be a full tree. Mason (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (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:Criminals from Fort Lauderdale, Florida

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. There's no need to diffuse by city. I'm also ok with deletion. Mason (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2024 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_19&oldid=1253614670"