Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 15

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. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Research institutes to Category:Research organizations

Nominator's rationale: synonyms fgnievinski (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- They are not the same thing. If there is anything wrong with this category it is that Organisations should not be a subcategory, but a sibling. The organisations are companies, charities, and associations. Institutes will tend to be a single building or campus where research takes place. Similar but different, though there may be things that belong in both. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as explained by Peterkingiron.--Nan (talk) 20:25, 18 June 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.

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. I note that in 2015 there was a strong consensus to Keep at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#Viking_Age_people. Perhaps a fresh nomination might also consider the "Viking Age people in Foo" siblings within Category:Norsemen. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Viking Age clergy to Category:Norse clergy
• Propose renaming Category:Viking Age monarchs to Category:Norse monarchs
• Propose renaming Category:Viking Age poets to Category:Norse poets
• Propose renaming Category:Viking Age women to Category:Norse women (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: rename, "Norse" is more precise than "Viking Age people", the latter could include Greek or Chinese pople during the Viking Age but that is obviously not what is meant here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support these. I think we should be very cautious in using categories like Viking Age... Too easy to misinterpret. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Monarchs contains Norse, Swedish, Danish and English and Gaelic monarchs. They can't all be merged to Norse surely? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "English" is "Anglo-Norse" and "Gaelic" is "Norse-Gaelic" to be precise, that seems Norse enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not satisfied with the explanations provided. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwerfjkl: it seems this got relisted on a one day older CfD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, Probably a bug in XFDCloser, though no harm done. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Laurel Lodged: I just edited my earlier comment of 23 April, is this clearer? Or else why are you not satisfied? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation potentially contains ambiguities; the proposal, however, would introduce actual error. Better to supply scope notes than to introduce error. It's like "Elizabethan Age" or "Tudor Period"; potentially many Chinese monarchs might have reigned during these periods, yet it is understood that it only includes Western Europe. If that's not already clear, then create a note that spells it out explicitly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: there is no error in having "Anglo-Norse" and "Norse-Gaelic" as subcategories of "Norse", is there? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all, if any, Category:Princes in Rus' were Category:Norse monarchs. But they were definitely Category:Viking Age monarchs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: I'd rather purge Category:Princes in Rus': while the first prince(s) may be considered Norse, most descendants assimilated into the Slavic population and lived until long after the Viking Age. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, it may be best to withdraw the nominations while purging and further thinking takes place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, after purging there is nothing left that would not fit a Norse category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 16 June 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.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Vocal duets to Category:Vocal collaborations and Category:Vocal duets

Nominator's rationale: "Duet" means two people; no more, no fewer. Many articles in this category are collaborations between more than two solo artists (e.g., The Only Way I Know, Find Out Who Your Friends Are), between a solo artist and a duo/group/band (e.g., Deep River Woman, If You See Him/If You See Her), or both (e.g., the Sugarland/Little Big Town/Jake Owen version of Life in a Northern Town).

The concept of a collaborative piece of music is a notable one worth categorizing, as the existence of Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals and similar award categories indicates, so I feel there is a precedent to correctly categorize all collaborative musical works and not just duets without misusing the word. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ETA: Category:Collaborative albums already exists, therefore giving this category more reason to be split. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split There are numerous entries here that are clearly not duets, and I agree that this is worth categorizing, just not categorizing wrongly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 19 June 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.

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 keep – withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Younger sons of earls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I doubt this is WP:CATDEFINING. Even for primogeniture we don't have such categories, possibly except Category:Eldest sons of British hereditary barons which I doubt too. Brandmeister^talk 09:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this was kept in 2008, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 25#Order of precedence categories. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As parent Category:Children of peers and peeresses has not been nominated, there is no reason to remove the articles in Category:Younger sons of earls from the tree of Category:Children of peers and peeresses. So if not kept then merge, rather than delete. Preferably this should have been a batch nomination together with other "Younger sons of" siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, withdrawing, was not aware of that discussion. Brandmeister^talk 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is a well-populated category. Eldest sons do not get muich of a category because they inherit the peerage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very useful category in tracking down the numerous cadet lines of aristocratic families. Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 21 June 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.

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: deleted by unanimous consensus (no need to prolong this), whereby most participants fealt it constitutes WP:OR by way of cat. The loaded nature of the word "elite" nowadays was noted as deeply problematic by multiple participants (btw, Elite theory could use some work — I volunteer all of you). In response, the creator had said that this is limited to "political elites," but that this cat is about "economic or cultural elites...[or] sports elite." However, this and other explanations by the creator were viewed as novel thinking.

The overall thinking, then, is that this cat is ill-defined and is all over the place. Again, not a single person except for the creator is in favour of seeing it retained. The mini-essay in the cat's page likewise seems subpar. Perhaps there is a way to somehow incorporate these and other "high status" locales in a cat or a list (I also just realized Category:American upper class exists), but it's clear that everyone deems this particular attempt as failing to meet the most basic community standards. It is, by all accounts, a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT par excellence.

Sidenote: When I was younger, I thought Martha's Vineyard was a vineyard owned by Martha Stewart — how stupid is that? (Rhetorical: the answer is mucho stupido.) El_C 07:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Locations in the United States with elite populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. What is an "elite population"? Inclusion is highly subjective, and the category is unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources for high income or high status communities and neighborhoods and what defines them. Such knowledge has been developed by the disciplines of Sociology and, especially, Demography. Knowledge of this sort is wide-spread and part of the canon of knowledge. Wikipedia has numerous articles on the subject, just not a category. The two examples, Aspen, Colorado and The Hamptons have a great deal in common and show distinct differences from other sorts of communities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You can refer to the most powerful, rich, or talented people within a particular group, place, or society as the elite. [...]" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wealthy-elite User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bizarre name. Brandmeister^talk 10:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some culturally elite communities, such as Newport, Rhode Island, or Carmel, California are not particularly wealthy, and some wealthy communities, such as Weld County, Colorado are not, in any sense, inhabited by a cultural elite. Tried to find the best title, but I'm open to a better one. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is suitable for a list of average income level by populated place, but not suitable for a category where you can just include or exclude articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The word "elite" is far too culturally loaded to be used in a category. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about high status? Be the way, the subject matter of demography, and sociology generally, includes information about cultural and social distinctions. Thus, part of the body of knowledge, if handled appropriately. How are the inhabitants of Aspen or The Hamptons described if not in terms of wealth or as a cultural elite? They are certainly different from average people. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Cherry Hills Village, Colorado#Notable people. If those folks are not elite, who is? User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) The "loading" comes from assertions about political elites. In most cases the category applies to economic or cultural elites, or in the case of Cherry Hills, to, mostly, a sports elite. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The name is explicitly biased and the description as including places "notable for their elite, and/or wealthy, inhabitants" is entirely subjective. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the market for housing or good schools, such information is quite concrete, and will be reflected in what it will cost you to buy a home in most of the places in the category. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder, what is the dividing line between elite and non-elite populations? Is the price of homes the criteria? How much do homes have to cost to have elite populations? Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High enough that most people in that area could not afford to live there. But there are a wide variety of specific situations. Some communities, such as Manhattan, even have slums. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Now that I think about it, “elite” is quite vague and unverifiable to be able to support an encyclopedic category or page. Castncoot (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's a better name? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• None. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this category appears to have been created as an attempt at original research. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- clearly subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above, this is ill-conceived and ill-defined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOR. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only subjective, debatable as defining, and mislabeled since "elite" has more than one meaning, of which "wealthy" was not the first to come to my mind, but capable of different interpretations: notable for including wealthy residents, or having only wealthy residents? I have reverted a couple of instances in which the category creator has added it to places whose residents have a wide range of incomes. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not quite sure that this is an encyclopedic category. Something like "median income over $X thousand" might be acceptable, but I really don't see how anything can be firmly in this category based off of the alleged elite qualities of their populations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hospitals in Uttara to Category:Hospitals in Dhaka and Category:Uttara

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Being in Dhaka explains it better. GenuineArt (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The category has three articles now. Mehedi Abedin 12:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is still small. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for Now with no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:37, 1 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.

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in Gaeldom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bizarre category amalgamation with no useful purpose -- Gaeldom is a disambiguation page and all of the subcats are better categorized elsewhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Used for only 1 user too. GenuineArt (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 19 June 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.

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:Oaxacan cuisine. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cuisine of Oaxaca to Category:Oaxacan cuisine

Nominator's rationale: Per parent article Oaxacan cuisine. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per C2C, standard naming convention such as its parent Category:Mexican cuisine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename to match main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:38, 1 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Songs about diseases and disorders to Category:Songs about diseases and Category:Songs about mental health
• Propose splitting Category:Works about diseases and disorders to Category:Works about diseases and Category:Works about mental health (added later)

Nominator's rationale: split as these are quite different topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Category:Works about diseases and disorders is the parent, and Category:Works about mental health is part of it. Do you want to start at that level, and work down? – Fayenatic London 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, I have added the parent category to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support nom. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename, support split. Sorry, after another look I think the rename from "diseases and disorders" to "diseases" doesn't work. The hierarchy extends still higher to Category:Diseases and disorders and Category:Human diseases and disorders, which includes Category:Disability. Disability-related topics clearly do not necessarily belong under either "diseases" or "mental health". – Fayenatic London 06:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I see it: with the rename opposed, the solution for the first nominated category is just creating Category:Songs about mental health and moving/copying part of the content of Category:Songs about diseases and disorders to the new category. For the second nominated category there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating? We have it already – created last year as Songs about mental illness, then renamed to mental disorders, then renamed to mental health at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Mental health & disorders. But since you have populated it with subcats,[1] by all means re-create Category:Songs about mental disorders as a subcat. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic seems to be cursed as far as it concerns CfD discussions, you are completely right. Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 15 June 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.