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) 05:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sister city and Twin city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a category Batternut (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- This is a misuse of category space for a town twinning for one city. This is not a useful theme for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 27 June 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.

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, removing John of Gothia. Note: the Women categories are currently empty, so I will delete them, but without prejudice to them being re-created at the target names if they look useful. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:7th-century Gothic people to Category:7th-century Visigothic people
• Propose renaming Category:8th-century Gothic people to Category:8th-century Visigothic people
• Propose renaming Category:9th-century Gothic people to Category:9th-century Visigothic people
• Propose renaming Category:7th-century Gothic women to Category:7th-century Visigothic women
• Propose renaming Category:8th-century Gothic women to Category:8th-century Visigothic women

Nominator's rationale: rename, all individual people in these categories are known as Visigothic people. Note that other Gothic peoples than the Visigoths are no longer reported to exist as late as the 7th century and beyond. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Ostrogoths dissappear from history following the Gothic War (535–554), with their remnants assimilated by the Byzantines and the Lombards. But the Crimean Goths continued to exist at least until the 16th century. The Principality of Theodoro was a Byzantine rump state that spoke Crimean Gothic. The Crimean Goths eventually lost their political independence, and they dissappear as an ethnic group in the 17th or 18th century. Their fate is unclear, but they may have been assimilated by the Crimean Tatars. Dimadick (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would agree with the last comment. Visigoth is a more satisfactory ethnicity. I expect they are all Visigoths, but this needs to be checked individually, and any who were not need to be purged into a suitable alternative category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I learnt something new today, about Crimean Goths. It's of course perfectly alright to check if these categories don't contain any Crimean Goths. In fact only John of Gothia needs to be purged if the categories are renamed. Beside that, I completely agree that Visigoth is a more satisfactory ethnicity to categorize by, after all the Visigoths and the Crimean Goths were separated by thousands of kilometers. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if we are sure they are all Visigoths. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 2 July 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.

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. The consensus here is that this category simply categorizes films simply in which suicide occurs, which is not a defining characteristic of that film. In the cases where the film is about suicide, Category:Films about suicide should be utilized. ℯxplicit 00:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Suicide in films to Category:Films featuring suicide

Nominator's rationale: "Suicide in films" is a non-defining category being applied to any film in which a suicide occurs. My understanding is that there is an emerging consensus that "Foo in films" categories are inappropriate because they allow for inclusion of films where "foo" is not a primary element. "Foo in films" categories should be renamed to make it clear that foo must be a significant element of the film, not simply an occurrence within the film. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the consensus that you claim exists. Films featuring x is rarely used as a category other than when it is in relation to awards. If it's decided that Films featuring x is should be the usual format, then other cats should also be renamed, not merely this one. Jim Michael (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current discussion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Category: Foo in film. Can you please provide additional reference to your claim regarding "Films featuring x"? And I'm fully in support of those other categories being renamed as well, but I'd rather start with one test case to get some idea of where other editors land on this. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that related discussion until now and was unaware that you intended this to be one of many cats which you want renamed. The cats called Films featuring x are mostly award-related. I don't mind if cats are renamed in the way you suggest, but it doesn't change much. Jim Michael (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly support the thought behind the nomination, in line with WP:DEFINING. Perhaps Category:Films about suicide is even clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that Category:Films about suicide already exists. Shouldn't we then just delete the nominated category? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about that, but there could be a film in which a suicide occurs that attracts notable coverage, without the film itself being centered on said suicide. I think retaining the "about" sub-category would be useful. DonIago (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cases like the protagonist's suicide in Nekromantik (1987)? The film is not about suicide, but about the character's necrophilia. But in the course of the film, the character is bullied by his co-workers, is fired by his boss, is abandoned by his girlfriend (because he can no longer financially support her), he starts suffering from erectile dysfunction, and performs a couple of murders out of anger and frustration. As he looses the will to live, the film closes with the character's "grisly suicide" by stabbing. In the 1990s, the film was banned in several countries because of "revolting, objectionable content (necrophilia, high impact violence, animal cruelty and abhorrent behavior)". Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is confusing to have two categories about the same topic next to each other, one based on a defining characteristic and the other not. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename Clearer definition of the scope. Dimadick (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as woefully non-defining; delete as redundant with Category:Films about suicide. The nom's proposal (like the original cat. name) is like "Films featuring cars" or "Films featuring dancing", "Tacos in films" or "Fistfights in films". I could support something like Category:Films about suicide, indicating an actual RS-provable topical focus, and we already have that. The reason the current move was proposed appears to be closely tied to this over-categorization dispute: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Category: Foo in film.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 03:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So you don't believe a film in which a suicide occurs that attracts notable coverage from third-party sources, but which is not inherently about the suicide, merits being included in a suicide-associated film category? Or rather, that there shouldn't be a category to cover such cases? Just seeking clarification on your position. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither. We should have a "Category:Films about suicide" indicating an actual RS-provable topical focus, as I said. There's notable coverage in third-party sources about all kinds of stuff in films – basically, whatever caught an reviewer's personal attention. That doesn't make it a defining characteristic of the film (more of the the reviewer's interests). If a bunch of sources agree that, e.g., the value and power of close friendship is a central theme of Toy Story and its major sequels, then putting them in "Category:Films about friendship" is sourceably reasonable and encyclopedic, as a defining feature, and we should have such a category.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a film in which suicide is "featur[ed]" or is just present doesn't define the film. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice: There's currently discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Film about whether to recommend category names like "Films about foo" (rather than "Films featuring foo" or "Foo in films" as a standard. I've recommended a review of how this is handled with regard to TV and literature, too, for consistency, but I don't know if this is being done. If there's widespread inconsitency, this might be worth either an RfC or a mass CfR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:NOVELS and MOS:TV don't appear to me to touch on the subject. I didn't see anything about categorization by plot elements at either. There's some implication that novels and tv shows simply don't have these kinds of categories, but my search wasn't exhaustive, though the few articles I checked didn't have these kinds of categories in place. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 17 July 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.

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) 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rick Bonadio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. All articles already in a more specific subcategory which negates this need. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:24, 26 June 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.

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 and purge of biographies then look again at the result. Timrollpickering 00:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Multiple issues with guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Definitions_and_scope. This category oversimplifies a sensitive political issue. OTSSM is not a digital on-or-off characteristic of human beings, as is for example the category "People from FOO." It does not match any of the categorization schemes suggested in Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Categorization_schemes. The recent history of edit-warring about whether or not this category should also be in the category of "Discrimination against LGBT people" is just one indication of how this category produces more heat than light. Anyone who wants to learn if politician X supports same-sex marriage should be able to read that information in the person's wiki article, where it will be part of a nuanced, foot-noted, clear discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I mentioned this in the related BLPN discussion already (which the nominator unfortunately ignored) but this was not a category for people before a single editor added a lot of people articles. So the arguments for deletion presented do not apply. There are plenty of articles such as California Proposition 8 (2008), that do fit this category. Removal of the biographical articles is sufficient to fix the perceived problem, as was pointed out at BLPN by multiple editors. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Names of people now dominate this list, in direct opposition to WP:SEPARATE. If this category is intended as a container for legal measures taken against same-sex marriage, then it should be renamed to make it clear that names of people do not belong in it. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep. This could be applicable for laws or organizations that specifically oppose same-sex marriage. Just people it doesn't make sense as a category for people does not mean it's a useful category. Natureium (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it would need to be renamed. The name seems satisfactory to me. Natureium (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove all biographical articles from this category. I don't care what happens after that. Deli nk (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove biographical articles and keep category. GMG^talk 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are organizations like Focus on the Family notable for their opposition to same-sex marriage, and subjects such as Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 that would fall neatly into this cat. Editorial judgement must be used when deciding which articles should be categorized as such, and people do not belong for reason explained in WP:COP#Sensitive. Being a sensitive political issue is irrelevant. My vague recollection is that we once had Category:People opposed to same-sex marriage, but I think it was deleted at CfD. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly you mean this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove where do we draw the line? Do we include Obama and Hillary Clinton in this category because of their opinions and sometimes votes on the matter? If we only count votes, then surely Bill Clinton should be on this list. As said above, this is not a "person of FOO" category this is a fluid category that is not a binary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• that's rubbish the talk about this is a fluid category that is not a binary. what about some of the gay people pages they weren't gay but when in 2000s and 2010s they say became gay. that's fluid. Obama and Clinton won't be on the list because they are known to be opposed to SSM, and they aren't noted to be campaigners against SSM. QubecMan (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus? Dear colleagues, I think I see consensus to remove all articles about people from this category and preserve it as a repository for political actions such as laws and referendums. I came to this section, seeing CfD as "Categories for Discussion." I will withdraw my nomination if somebody more experienced can remove the many articles naming people and add some notation to remind others not to add people in future to this list. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please have some patience. Discussions are supposed to run for at least a week so that more editors have the opportunity to react, and there is no reason to deviate from the normal term in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MrX. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove or Remove BLP's - per nom and other comments. At the very least, all BLP's should be removed from the category, since it will be very difficult to objectively determine a criteria of inclusion. As stated previously - should individuals qualify if they once voted in a related matter? Who determines if such a matter is related? etc. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps purge of people -- If we do keep this, the people need to go into a separate Category:People opposed to same-sex marriage. However, BLP issues require citations, and I am not sure that it really helps the WP category scheme to categorise everyone according to every opinion they may hold at some point in their life. If we did retain such a people category, it should be limited to those who have made a point of campaigning on the issue, not for those who have randomly expressed a view on the issue. Perhaps therefore Category:Campaigners against same-sex marriage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.: I say if we have so much oppose people who oppose same sex marriage on the page then we should have a other page where people who against same sex marriage should be on, that way we KEEP 3AOpposition_to_same-sex_marriage for legal cases opposing same sex marriage. QubecMan (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep.: as the person who putted those people on the list I would be ok if we putted them instead on the Category:People opposed to same-sex marriage.

• Keep.: Why don't we have a talk like this discussion where we have a category for Category:Supporters of same-sex marriage and a category for Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage that way we can put the names there. QubecMan (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove all biographies of persons not primarily notable for anti-same-sex-marriage activism. Per above. Neutrality^talk 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Peterkingiron and Neutrality, part of the people in this category could be moved to a new Category:Anti-same-sex-marriage activists and the remaining part of people should simply be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we remove all biographies, this category becomes one sub-category plus a short list of referenda whose result opposed same-sex marriage. (There is no equivalent category "Support of same-sex marriage" where we collect referenda that turned out the other way, such as for example Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland or Maryland Question 6. There is a category "Marriage referendums" and a related category "Same-sex union legislation in the United States" where any orphaned items from this category would be better placed. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point, referenda and legislation are not opposition per se. We may better collect the referendums in Category:Same-sex marriage referendums as a subcategory of Category:Marriage referendums. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or something like it I came across this cat whilst looking for a home for Category:Anti-same-sex-marriage activists which @QubecMan created on 7 July but did not categorise (please don't leave new cats uncategorised!). My gut feel without knowing the area well is that it feels like it's enough of a "thing" to justify a category - we don't shy away from categorisation just because the subject is "difficult" or a shade of grey. And we have lots of categories which are not "digital on-or-off characteristic of human beings" -we don't categorise someone as a writer just because they write one newspaper article. The critical factor is whether the characteristic is WP:DEFINING of that person - a good guide is whether it's one of the top 3-4 things that come to mind when you think of that person. So a politician who occasionally votes on the matter is not defined by it, whereas someone like Peter Tatchell is defined by his activism (albeit on the other side of this argument). The idea of "activist" helps get editors to think in terms of a defining involvement for biographies, and I'm sure there will be articles on eg anti-SSM protests and organisations that will fill out this category or a similar one. Le Deluge (talk) 01:36, 15 July 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.

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/merge. Timrollpickering 11:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wintering birds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In 2017 a recently-created set of "vagrant birds of" categories were CFDed. The creator of those categories (User:Couiros22, who is now, thankfully, blocked) attempted to defend them ("they are not "vagrant birds", they are "wintering birds" ", "Of course it's useful, because distinguishing birds according to their seasonal repartition is a major aspect." etc), but experienced birders and categorizers described these categories as overcategorization and pointed out problems (e.g. "Even if these categories were made "wintering" rather than "vagrant", they would not be helpful. What about young birds that spend their first full year on the wintering grounds? What about species that don't migrate? Why categorize wintering grounds and not breeding grounds? The permutations are legion!").

After the vagrant-birds categories had been deleted (not renamed) C22 (in an extreme case of WP:IDHT) created this set of wintering-birds categories.

See also Category talk:Wintering birds of Africa where C22 attempts to explain/defend the category using wording such as "seems without confuscation for most readers". DexDor ^(talk) 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support either upmerging (as in the nom) or straight deletion (per several comments below) with upmerging being my preference as more correct procedurally (the Birds of East Africa etc categories haven't yet been CFDed). DexDor ^(talk) 09:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. (There needs to be some mechanism to require consensus before categories are created; Couiros22, Caftaric and NotWith (who may be sockpuppets) in particular have created many pointless categories.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. The creator of these categories was constantly told they were wrong/misleading/ecessive/over-simplified, but just carried on regardless Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete -- If kept it should be Category:Winter migrant birds of Central Africa. However, the issue may be more complex than one would think. Certain bird species regarded as resident in my country (UK) in fact migrate, so that the summer population move south and are replaced by another moving in from the north. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - editors ought to stop creating categories when people object. Oculi (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. As one of the editors who kept trying to explain to Couiros22 why these categories were misleading and incomplete, I'd be happy to see the back of them! MeegsC (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, Peterkingiron, Jimfbleak, Peter coxhead - the nomination is to upmerge the articles (from wintering-birds-of-foo to birds-of-foo). Note: In most/all cases the articles were not in the birds-of-foo category before C22's edit (example). Should this be an upmerge or a straight delete? DexDor ^(talk) 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the definition difficulties, especially with migratory birds, which might breed in Europe some, winter in Africa, some stay in Europe, better delete the lot. Before Couiros22, we had only continent-level categories for most birds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, all would be looked at individually, but... Delete the lot as per Jimfbleak. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim. Not only are there definition difficulties, but we would never include all of the countries that some species are located in, because it could mean a list of 130 categories for some species (i.e Peregrine Falcon, Osprey, etc.) MeegsC (talk)

• For info (in response to Jim's "Before Couiros22 ..." comment): Some of the sub-continental categories (Birds of East Africa etc) were created by C22. Some were created by other editors (including myself whilst deleting some birds-of-country categories - example). DexDor ^(talk) 09:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: birds-of-country categories (as of Feb 2018) are listed here. DexDor ^(talk) 09:40, 30 June 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.