Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Shopping malls by management company[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Shopping malls by management company

Category:Hololive[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, replaced by Hololive Production. WashuOtaku (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 11 May 2022 (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:Animated television series about fish[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Animated television series about fish

Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment

Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "background" parameter is deprecated, so this maintenance category is not needed. Also, it can, and has, caused confusion that there was something wrong with an article when there really wasn't. ~CatMan 149(talk) 00:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there is no such parameter. Why did this have to get relisted twice? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 12 May 2022 (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 about wealth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Category:Songs about wealth

Category:Songs about religion[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. There's a widespread agreement that the categories are in dire need of cleanup, although the particulars of how this should be implemented differ. There is a consensus to containerize Category:Songs about religion. As for the other categories, both keeping/purging and deletion with no prejudice towards recreation will accomplish the same result. However, my read is that the deletion position has a stronger policy-driven claim because the categories as they stand currently seem to run afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ridiculous nonsense in the usual "Songs about [word in title or in lyrics]"-theme, which is redundant with existing categories (most notably Category:Religious songs). Serves no useful categorisation purpose except grouping together dozens of songs which are very much unrelated or very tenuously related (at the absolute best). It might be possible to group songs by theme in some way, but this is definitively not it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am still laughing at seeing a redirect Livin' on a Prayer (song) created to redirect to the actual song article, but with cats for Bon Jovi songs and Songs about religion. The target, apparently, isn't about religion... I have dealt with the redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Why single out topics of faith? Many such similar categories exist. Outright deleting of categories is the lazy option to cleaning them up. - JGabbard (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't read the nomination, JGabbard, we who like articles about religions don't want to see categories saying "about" when the songs actually just happen to contain a specific word in titles, a word which in many cases is not a theme of the song. Take "Heaven in the Backseat" for an example, - do you believe that song is "about Heaven"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it, Gerda. I am an inclusionist. Whether Heaven/Hell/angels are real or metaphorical is unimportant. There is no great need to parse these categories, or overthink them. - JGabbard (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether heaven/hell/angels are real or metaphorical is completely beside the point of the discussion. The question at stake is whether these are songs about heaven/hell/angels at all, beyond a trivial mention of these words in the lyrics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • JGabbard, do you believe the song mentioned is "about" Heaven, stress on "about"? If yes, how would it touch "faith"? - Please tell me a similar category that is not on deletion discussions, and I'll check. I am an inclusionist for article content, but don't believe we should keep false or misleading categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JGabbard:. So you are admitting you think that songs about Heavenly Angels; Angels as in girlfriends; Angels, as in backers; or Angels in any other meaning can be put together as a useful category and in direct opposition to WP:SHAREDNAME --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I certainly do, because both good and evil angels have been well known to manifest themselves in human form, sometimes for 'romantic' purposes (aka 'earth angels').[1][2] And whether a song is actually about a subject or simply alludes or refers to it is somewhat subjective, and is not a distinction that I feel needs to be made, especially when the subject is found in the title. - JGabbard (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You really should familiarise yourself WP guidelines, including, but not exclusively WP:CATDEF, WP:SHAREDNAME (which you admit you ignore in your post above), in fact a complete reading of WP:CATEGORIZATION would benefit to you. Richhoncho (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JGabbard was blocked indefinately on 12 April 2022 for disruptive editing so his vote! should not be counted.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (if kept heavily purge), incidentally there is something useful in these categories, e.g. Dante's Inferno (song), but generally they contain too many articles that do not belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a song named after Dante's Inferno is not really "about" hell. All these categories are mislabelled, and who'd need Category:Songs that mention hell in the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of the (admittedly, very few) articles that has substantially more about the topic than just a word in the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which article? The song? No, it's "about" Dante's play. Is the play "about" hell. I don't think so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Marco. --Just N. (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category being filled up with entries that dont belong isn't reason for deletion, its reason for cleanup.★Trekker (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Poorly defined criteria (as many of these "songs by theme" categories are). Too much of a disparate connection amongst the articles put in these categories making this a mish mosh of whatever people think should go in them. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Songs about religion, as a useful parent category which has some valid articles in it too. Procedural oppose on Category:Songs about religious leaders, not tagged. Purge the others, or delete as WP:TNT without prejudice to re-creation, since they contain a lot of articles that merely have a word in the title but are not about the stated subject. – Fayenatic London 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems more like a legitimate song topic than Category:Songs about occupations. And, yes, this is not a discussion about that category, this is comment, not a vote. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a any song qualifying for exactly "about" religion, - instead of "related" to religionor - as in many now in the category - "some religion mentioned in the title". It would need a precise definition of what makes a song "about" religion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per discussion and seemingly censoring a targeted religious topic-range. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense. This has nothing to do with censorship or religion and all about this being a uselessly vague category. "per discussion" is also a nonsensical rationale: are you going to selectively ignore all the policy-based arguments for why this should be deleted? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing about censorship here, that would make Categories about body parts anti-human. It is about WP:OR, WP:CATDEF, WP:SHAREDNAME and all the other reasons categories are discussed for deletion. There are plenty of well-sourced "religious topic-range" categories which are not covered by this nomination. Richhoncho (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd argue that it makes sense to keep this category as it is something that should be recorded on here. It only sees common sense to keep these categories. I wouldn't mind the entries in this category being pared down, however, and having stricter guidelines on what would be included in each category. Historyday01 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "it is something that should be recorded on here" is essentially WP:ITSIMPORTANT, which is even less convincing for categories (which are not there to "record" stuff but to help organise it) than for articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the religion item needs to be a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only, I have voted! ‘’’delete’’’ above and because it was listed on 5th February, relisted twice, closed as ‘keep’ on the May 11th reverted and listed as a new discussion. I wanted to flesh out my reasons with more clarity. If it hadn’t been relisted as a new list the only course of action would be to delete, or at least delete under WP:TNT. The nomination had when it was wrongly closed as keep in in spite of deletion being supported by 6 votes! opposed by 3 who, I note, said,

  1. And whether a song is actually about a subject or simply alludes or refers to it is somewhat subjective, and is not a distinction that I feel needs to be made, especially when the subject is found in the title
  2. ‘Category being filled up with entries that dont belong isn't reason for deletion, its reason for cleanup.’
  3. Keep Category:Songs about religion, as a useful parent category which has some valid articles in it too.

That made the support, "2 for clear up, but I’m not doing it" and one "ignoring the very reason these categories were listed in the first place."

Nomination was nothing to do with religion (as alleged by two keep supporters – nothing like muddying the waters to make a point, eh?). I doubt asking an angel to spread her wings on the bed has much to do with religion! These categories were nominated for deletion because they were filled using WP:SHAREDNAME, most, if not all entries fail WP:CATDEF or WP:V. There are some very good categories for religious songs outside of 'songs about.'

For those that still insist support keeping, I would ask them to check the CONTENTS of these categories, Category:Songs about angels doesn’t have one song which could be considered a ‘songs about religion’ and using the guidances in WP:OVERCATEGORISATION remove the articles which do not belong. Do the same for the other cats. Then instead of bomb supporting these categories without checking on the members. actually help to sort them out instead of leaving a POS for somebody else to deal with. Then they might survive, but I doubt it, they will be empty.

Thanks.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support per WP:TNT. I don't feel the strongly.about the religion/religious leaders cats. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my view, all of these categories need some housework to remove the titles not related to the subject and that would be most of them. If, as mentioned above, these then become empty, deletion would be the next step. These "songs about" categories are a random dumping ground where a word is in the title or there is a vague reference to the subject in the lyrics. NOT about the devil for example are Elvis’ Devil in Disguise which appears to be more about cheating according to the lyrics. I would also say to remove any title from any of these categories where we do not have a supporting reference in the body of the article where the songwriter confirms what the song is about, otherwise we are only using our own interpretation.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Egghead06: Are you volunteering to do that work, or, like so many others, saying keep, but let somebody else do the work? At least my suggestion of WP:TNT actually gets that work done. BTW, you are right, nearly all, if not all, entries are based on title, not something mentioned in the text as defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would quite happily volunteer to "do the work". However there needs to be consensus that it needs doing. If not, it lays itself open to being reverted by someone who disagrees.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then do what I did in similar circumstances, ping everybody who has commented and ask if anybody would object to you removing inappropriate members. I noted I would not start for at least 24 hours and did not receive one complaint before or after. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that against the principle of no canvassing?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not canvassing, you are asking here, at this discussion, if any interested parties (both for and against) would mind you removing articles that are wrongly misplaced in the categories. Something you have already said is a good idea. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean out. There are definitely songs where religion, angels, Heaven, the Devil, or Hell are major, defining subjects. Unfortunately, these things are also frequently referenced in titles and metaphors, and some people who may not have understood how categorization works on Wikipedia seem to have added them to categories where they aren't very relevant. This is not a reason to delete the categories, just to clean them out and possibly to add notes to the top about the kinds of songs that should and should not be included. They should be purged of the songs that reference the topics briefly or only in the title so that they only include songs that are actually about the topic of the category. These categories are actually not even that full (although this may have been due to others' efforts), so it shouldn't be that hard to clean them. Actually, this is actually kind of hard, mostly because a lot of the articles have little or no information about the lyrics. Still, I keep my position that these categories should be kept. I also noticed that some of the songs mention the thing metaphorically throughout the song. We might need to have a separate discussion about whether songs like that should be included. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, and nobody appears to be paying attention, I have already been through every song in the 'Angels' category and not one of the members of that category has a song that has the word 'angel' in the religious sense and every member could be removed without attention to matters like WP:V. Much in the same way that I Got You Babe isn't about children. If you think these cats need cleaning out, do the work, don't just come round and say 'keep' and leave the work for somebody else to do. Richhoncho (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Other than the religious sense, angel is also defined as "a person of exemplary conduct or virtue". A scan of the songs in this category some definitely fit into that definition.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So keep, but not as part of present cat? BTW Were those referenced, or just on the grounds of the title, thereby failing WP:SHAREDNAME. Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, I’ve often found that many, if not most, of these "about" Cats do not contain any reliable sources to verify exactly what a song is about. E.g. Heaven Must Be Missing an Angel which isn’t about religious angels and has no references to show what it is about!!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you bother to remove Heaven Must Be Missing an Angel from the cat it has no business being a member of of? You might like to read my earlier comment. Richhoncho (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed from Cat.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but WP:TNT would be more time efficient. Richhoncho (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’d like to change my view on this. As long as these "about" categories exist editors will always be tempted to add in songs simply because the title mentions the word. Is River Deep – Mountain High about rivers or mountains…er, no. These "about" categories need a serious review--Egghead06 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize Category:Songs about religion - per Category:Works about religion and its subcats. Any category with the broadly generic term "religion" as its the inclusion criteria should only have subcats (each of which denotes a particular religion) as members. My preference would be WP:TNT, but these should be parent/container cats at the very least, due to the non-specificity of the broad, general, topic "religion". - jc37 08:34, 30 July 2022 (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:Drug dealers of Breaking Bad[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/delete which in this case coincides (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entirely Fictional, Useless category, Can be seen as FANCRUFT, SMALLCAT. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:53, 11 May 2022 (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:Fishing in Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Category:Fishing in Ukraine

Category:Leporidae in popular culture[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 to Category:Rabbits and hares in popular culture. – Fayenatic London 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category names should be reader friendly too (surely there's a wiki salad link for that too?). Nobody except biologists knows wth is leporidae. Category name helpfully explains this is for 'rabbit and hares'. Ok. Let's make this clear for the readers too (ditto for all child categories). Note that most categories in Category:Mammals in popular culture use common English words for animals, not the obscure Latin ones, so there's standardization to consider here too. (And a quick glance at interwikis suggest most other wikipedias prefer common language here too). PS. If succesfull, subcategories should be renamed to follow suit. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course. Bugs and Roger Leporiidae would agree. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article is Leporidae, and it is quite inclusive. Rabbits and Hares sounds redundant and does not take taxonomy into account. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Especially in the context of popular culture, Leporidae is an obscure word. Femke (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, wabbits and hares are the popular names here.--Mvqr (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (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:18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain[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 to Category:18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Great Britain. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the state was the "Kingdom of Great Britain". I could also live with "Great Britain" even though that might be confused with the island. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Great Britain" seems perfectly reasonable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (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:American drag queens of Asian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Category:American drag queens of Asian descent

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_11&oldid=1138412604"