Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 20

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20 edit

Category:Songs in 7/4 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I haven't seen categorization of songs by meter before. I'm not sure that we should start. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I note that List of musical works in unusual time signatures exists, so adding any missing items to that would be worthwhile, but other than that I can't see a need for both the list and the category. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful category for anyone researching music. - Mikus (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how it's more useful than a list - which would allow for links to song, performer, and album, as well as giving information about whether it's entirely in 7/4 or partially in 7/4... Grutness...wha? 05:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have categories for Songs in C-minor, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I so wanted to say keep, I have to explain my decision.
  1. Time signature relates to music, not lyrics so ‘songs by time signature’ is wrong in any event.
  2. If this is kept, why not ‘songs in common time?’ or perhaps, as that would be so large, we could diffuse to say, Category:Disco songs 4 to the floor. Songs by time signature would be too large to be of any use.
  3. Is the time signature of a piece of music defining of that article. See WP:CATDEF and WP:CATV.
  4. A member of the category, Jovano Jovanke, fails to mention to the time signature of the song, so we have, like other song categories, i.e. Songs about, Songs composed in the key (what’s that all about, nobody knows what key a song was composed in?) added because an editor “thinks” it belongs in a category, no verification, not mentioned in the text…
  5. The other two members are in 7/4 AND 4/4, and so, to be pedantic, do not belong in this category either, or should they also be another time signature, as yet not created?
  6. The use of time signatures is worth a scholarly article, but that already exists at Septuple meter – including links to relevant song articles.
This category detracts from WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not opposed to list, but this category seems non-defining and not a worthwhile tree to start since it's unlikely to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While it's probably defining for the Pink Floyd song, it doesn't seem to be a good category scheme to have. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:14, 24 June 2021 (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.

Anglican bishops in Africa and Oceania 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of False Bay to Category:Anglican bishops of False Bay
List of 18 more in Southern Africa
  1. Category:Bishops of Christ the King to Category:Anglican bishops of Christ the King
  2. Category:Bishops of Grahamstown to Category:Anglican bishops of Grahamstown
  3. Category:Bishops of Kimberley and Kuruman to Category:Anglican bishops of Kimberley and Kuruman
  4. Category:Bishops of Maritzburg to Category:Anglican bishops of Maritzburg
  5. Category:Bishops of Matlosane to Category:Anglican bishops of Matlosane
  6. Category:Bishops of Mbhashe to Category:Anglican bishops of Mbhashe
  7. Category:Bishops of Mpumalanga to Category:Anglican bishops of Mpumalanga
  8. Category:Bishops of Mthatha to Category:Anglican bishops of Mthatha
  9. Category:Bishops of Natal to Category:Anglican bishops of Natal
  10. Category:Bishops of Niassa to Category:Anglican bishops of Niassa
  11. Category:Bishops of Saldanha Bay to Category:Anglican bishops of Saldanha Bay
  12. Category:Bishops of St John's to Category:Anglican bishops of St John's
  13. Category:Bishops of St Mark the Evangelist to Category:Anglican bishops of St Mark the Evangelist
  14. Category:Bishops of Ukhahlamba to Category:Anglican bishops of Ukhahlamba
  15. Category:Bishops of Umzimvubu to Category:Anglican bishops of Umzimvubu
  16. Category:Bishops of Zululand to Category:Anglican bishops of Zululand
  17. Category:Bishops of the Free State to Category:Anglican bishops of the Free State
  18. Category:Bishops of the Highveld to Category:Anglican bishops of the Highveld
Rationale - both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have many dioceses in Africa and Oceania and there is a considerable overlap in the names.
Similar recent cfds for Ghana (2021 May 13#Anglican bishops in Ghana), Nigeria (2021 May 21#Anglican bishops in Nigeria), Kenya/Uganda (2021 May 31#Anglican bishops in Kenya and Uganda) and various countries in Africa (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Anglican bishops in Africa) resulted in 'rename'.
As for Oceania, the vast majority (eg Category:Anglican bishops in Australia by diocese, Category:Anglican bishops in New Zealand by diocese) already use 'Anglican bishops of'. Oculi (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose the general renaming of categories to disambiguate, where no ambiguity exists. Only where a Roman Catholic and an Anglican diocese share the same name should the category be qualified; where the names are different there is no need to disambiguate. Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wayne Jayes clearly is too narrow minded. There are also Lutherna (multiple denominations), various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and various Old and Indepdent Catholic possible sources for names to consider. It is hard to know all such things, especially since some will be fairly small, so always making the denomination clear in such articles and categories is the best practice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all as proposed. Some unnecessary disambiguation does no harm and advances consistency in the tree structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom to create a consistent structure which avoids ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 27 June 2021 (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.

Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
78 more subcats
17 more subcats
Nominator's rationale: to remove ambiguity, per the parent Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the head article Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (recently renamed to that title per a requested move discussion Talk:Constituencies of the_Parliament of the United Kingdom#Requested_move_22_May_2021).
Note that thsi nomination does not include all the subcats of Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Some of the subcats use the term "Westminster constituencies", and replacing that term would raise some diffrent issues best considered separately. Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic) and its subcats are polluted with non-Westminster constituencies, and will need cleanup before they could be renamed to to a less ambiguous title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: survey and discussion edit
Comments and !votes here
  • Oppose Long-winded and unnecessary. The capitalisation of "Parliamentary" makes it clear that it refers to the United Kingdom Parliament. If a move really were necessary then "Constituencies of the United Kingdom Parliament" would be less bad than the proposal. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DuncanHill: that was all discussed and decided at the RM. CFD is not the place to re-run the RM. But seriously, do you really believe that The capitalisation of "Parliamentary" makes it clear that it refers to the United Kingdom Parliament? Really?
    What exactly do you believe would be gained by keeping the category titles out of sync with the head article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Yes I do believe it makes it clear, and are you really saying that CFD is not the place to object to the renaming of a category? Really? DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DuncanHill: not all objections are valid, and category names should follow article titles.
    How on earth does the capitalisation of "Parliamentary" make it clear that the title refers to "Parliament of the United Kingdom" rather than "European Paraliament" or "Scottish Parliament" or "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament" or "Parliament of Northern Ireland" or "Parliament of Ireland"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: United Kingdom Parliamentary = to do with the United Kingdom Parliament. United Kingdom parliamentary = to do with parliaments in the United Kingdom. This is primary school stuff. Your proposed titles sound like they have been translated from French by a French person, not like native English speech. Anyway, how about you allow people to comment without jumping down the throats of anyone who dares to question your decision? DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DuncanHill: questioning a rationale is not jumping down throats. However, you had your chance to make your case at the RM, and you did make it. The consensus there was against you, but instead of accepting that consensus you have decided to have a re-run here on the consequentials. That's tendentious. If you dispute the RM outcome, WP:Move review is thataway.
And before you start making snide comments about primary school stuff, you should consider how the phrase "United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies" can reasonably be parsed either as "(United Kingdom) (Parliamentary constituencies)" or as "(United Kingdom Parliamentary) (constituencies)", which have two different meanings. That's what creates the ambiguity, and that's why the consensus at RM was to rename to an unambiguous title, by avoiding the adjectival form. Parsing phrases was something we learnt in primary school, with emphasis on how some structures can create ambiguity. Is it too much to ask you accept consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the capitalisation prevents the first construction. Is it too much to ask you to accept that the closer - and not you - gets to decide which objections are valid? What's the point of opening a discussion if you won't accept discussion? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I listed the names of the other entities called "Parliament" above was because they too capitalise the word "Parliament", so capitalisation doesn't remove the ambiguity. Some strict interpretations of some views of grammar might support your interpretation, but it is not helpful to expect either readers or editors rely on such fine distinctions.
But all that was discussed at RM. Your made your case, and it was rejected. What's the point in reaching a consensus at RM if you don't accept the outcome?
The reason I listed the categories here instead of at WP:CFDS was primarily because I thought that these renamings might raise some other issues ... but also because I thought there was a risk that some tendentious editor might object 'cos they didn't like the RM outcome, and then I have extra work of moving the discussion here. Sadly, my fear turned out to be justified.
And of course the closer decides which objections are valid. But they do so at least partly on the basis of the discussion, and objections to spurious arguments are part of what they take into account. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Some strict interpretations of some views of grammar might support your interpretation" but it's also spurious, or even tendentious, for me to present my interpretation? Well done! At least it's patently clear how you regard other interpretations than your own. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, DuncanHill. It is spurious and tendentious of you to present your interpretation at this venue.
You made your case at RM, where it was rejected. Now you are just WP:FORUMSHOPping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I do wish you'd stop falsely claiming that I made a case and it was rejected at the RM. My only contribution there was to point out your error about the Welsh Parliament. DuncanHill (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer, @DuncanHill, I can rephrase it as: you chose not to make your substantive case at the RM, which was the proper venue to decide the title, and are now trying to turn the CFD into a re-run of that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 22 June 2021 (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:Alumni of Queen's Park Secondary School 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other UK school articles. Naming convention is that the "alumni of..." terminology is only used for universities etc. Jellyman (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2021 (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 Islamologists edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, this category was overlooked in this earlier discussion, split between writers/scholars about Islam in general (e.g. journalists, political commentators) and academics in Islamic studies specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (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 of Sichuanese descent 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, initially per WP:SMALLCAT, with no objection to recreate the category a) when there is evidence that Sichuanese people in other Chinese provinces than Sichuan and Chongqing are a clearly separate ethnic group and b) when there are enough articles to populate the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now With only 1 article, it's not clear if this is a defining topic. As more content is created, we can review this later if needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2021 (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:Flemish sculptors 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, align with parent Category:Flemish artists (before 1830) and sibling Category:Flemish painters (before 1830). Very few articles need to be purged, e.g. to Category:20th-century Belgian sculptors. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Flemish" is too ambiguous to use on its own. Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2021 (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 requested images of Nickelodeon 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One category missed from the batch at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 11#Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Nickelodeon. There is no code in the project template to place pages specifically in this category so it will always be empty (and the task force is inactive anyways). Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The category hasn't been emptied. As noted above, there is no template that places pages in this category since the project was converted to a task force over a year ago. Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (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:Hospitals with adolescent clinics 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not usually categorize hospitals by what clinics they contain. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this is a species of PERFCAT. There are hospitals specifically for children. It is appropriate to have categories for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I defy you to find a single article in Category:Children's hospitals that does not have a separate waiting room for teens without cartoon characters on the walls. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining. Especially since over time hospitals will reconfigure waiting rooms, clinic alignment and other related issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2021 (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:Mayoral elections in Springfield, Missouri edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Springfield, Missouri mayoral election; it's likely that basically no mayoral elections for this city will be notable. Hog Farm Talk 05:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all parents. Yes, the act is too small ... but deletion would remove the articles from relevant category tress. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 20 June 2021 (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 Tulsa edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT; all five of these songs are already in Category:Songs about Oklahoma Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a viable subcat of Category:Songs about Oklahoma. The articles should be removed from Category:Songs about Oklahoma, per WP:SUBCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur with BrownHairedGirl, who has already made the adjustment she suggested. - JGabbard (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are 5 entries in the cat, 4 have the word 'Tulsa' in the title and the fifth is W·O·L·D (song) which fails to mention Tulsa in the WP text, so hardly defining. Another, Twenty Four Hours from Tulsa is about somewhere OTHER than Tulsa according to the title. I could check the other 3 titles, but I suspect they shouldn't be in the category either. These 'songs about' are a repository of original research, assumptions and generally fail WP:SHAREDNAME. If I was really interested in 'Songs about Tulsa' I'd be annoyed at wasting my time looking at these entries.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides being inapplicable, those are frivolous, obtuse deletionist arguments. "99 Miles from L.A." is listed in Category:Songs about Los Angeles. W·O·L·D now mentions Tulsa in WP text. But "Nights on Broadway" and "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway", listed in Category:Songs about New York City, do not mention NYC in the WP text, so since nearly every city has a street called Broadway, according to your reasoning it would amount to original research to assume 'Broadway' refers to NYC, right? smh - JGabbard (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JGabbard:. WP guidelines and policies are always applicable and never 'frivolous or obtuse', including WP:CATDEF WP:5P, and the one you most recently ignored WP:RS. So WOLD mentions Tulsa, is that what the song is about? No, it’s not, it might be about age discrimination, loneliness, divorce, parting, separation, it even mentions Boise, Idaho thanks you your edit. But the question is, Is Tulsa defining of the song? If yes, then you need to still show it, with references, then it belongs in this category, until then remove it. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:I am fully aware of the lyrics. The lyrics are not about (or even set in) Tulsa. The lyrics don't suggest they are (which is not relevant to this discussion because they are not quoted in WP), but more importantly, Tulsa is not mentioned in the Wikipedia text either (although there is a synopsis of the lyrics). If you were really looking for 'Songs about Tulsa' you would be disappointed in finding an entry based on WP:SHAREDNAME with no details on this defining moment you are claiming, 'a song about Tulsa.'
Let's remind ourselves of the concept of categories, WP:CATDEF which reads A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject... It is only called Tulsa, because Burt wrote a 2 note phrase, if it had been a 3 note phrase, it might have been Missouri, St. Louis, or any other place, perhaps Hal discounted New York and Boston as being too commonplace. The reality is that Tulsa, in this song, is just some imaginary place where an imaginary person can't go back to, sung by Gene Pitney and others. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho, you do not seem to have read what I wrote. This is WP:DEFINING, and it is not WP:SHAREDNAME.
And your argument is based on your own imagination of that songwriter's creative journey, which isn't even OR: it's pure speculation. This is not an imaginary place; it's very explicitly Tulsa, which is a real place. Not Denver or Boston or Tampa or Reno, but Tulsa. You are entitled to whatever view you like, but I won't be discussing this with you any further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: No it is not defining, being name checked in a title or in a song does not make the song "about." Your insults are confirmation, whether you realise it or not, that you have no counter argument. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not namechecked. It is central to the song, as the unreached destination.
I am sadly unsurprised that you choose to describe rebuttal as insult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rich: I agree with all the guidelines used in WP policies, but feel that the appeal to policy for the deletion of this category is baseless.
To lend some balance to this dispute, you are correct that WP:CATDEF certainly excludes connecting articles to multiple categories merely because places such as cities are indiscriminately listed or namechecked ("Dancing in the Street," "All Over the World," "The Heart of Rock & Roll," etc.).
BH Girl may have raised your hackles, but she did not insult you. She makes a very valid point, that a song can indeed be "about" a place even though it is not "set" in that place. "California Dreamin'" is a perfect example. That makes it defining and comes within WP:CATDEF.
Beyond that, there are a few borderline cases such as the Chapin song (WOLD). So I look to other songs about traveling for examples of categories relating to not only destination as BH Girl indicated, but also origination. Just a few of them are:
"Please Come to Boston" includes two song categories, Boston and Tennessee.
"Midnight Train to Georgia" includes Georgia and California categories, as does "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay."
"Do You Know the Way to San Jose" includes "Songs about L.A."
And "Moonlight Feels Right" included the categories Songs about Baltimore & Songs about Mississippi before you removed them. - JGabbard (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I removed Songs about Baltimore and songs about Mississippi from Moonlight Feels Right because the WP text fails to mention either. I also noted why in my edit summary, Fails WP:CATDEF and WP:CATV. If something isn't in the article it shouldn't be in the categories. That's without a discussion on 'defining.' --Richhoncho (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this may be an occasion to start a discussion about the entire "Songs about" tree. I may be mistaken but I expect that reliable sources seldom analyze the lyrics of a song or discuss in depth what a song is about (in contrast to books or films). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good idea, Marcocapelle.
      It's a difficult area to nail down, because many songs use imagery and metaphor, sometimes in several layers. So there often several layer of "aboutness", and it would be great if we could agree some principles on how and when to categorise those layer. FWIW, I have come to favour inclusiveness, to avoid edit wars over nuances of interpretation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that there are some broader issues here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we should just delete this whole tree. It has too many small categories, and too many articles placed in ways that do not reflect the subject of the song at all. This is not analyzed enough for individual songs to really be built on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am indifferent to whether this category stays or goes, but shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Songs about Tulsa, Oklahoma if it remains? –Aidan721 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To distinguish it from what, Aidan? Baltimore, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Detroit also have categories, none of which include the state. - JGabbard (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baltimore, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Detroit are all listed in the AP Stylebook and do not require the state distinction in the title; however, Tulsa is not in the AP Stylebook and requires the , Oklahoma to follow per WP:USPLACE. The move would qualify for speedy criteria per WP:C2D. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have changed the songs' categorization accordingly. - JGabbard (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now migrated to Category:Songs about Tulsa, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - JGabbard (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should not do such moves during an active discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the discussion went flat a week ago. Both pages link here. - JGabbard (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong too, Category:Songs about Tulsa, Oklahoma has not been correctly notified for discussion. The best thing to do is for JGabbard to ask for speedy deletion as author. When and if this cat survives then he can apply under WP:C2D to have it renamed. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about Tulsa, Oklahoma is appropriately tagged and I have added it to this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2021 (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 with Alzheimer's disease edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Category:People with Alzheimer's disease

Category:People with dependent personality disorder 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:RS and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
Dependent personality disorder is a recognized psychiatric diagnosis that is characterized by a pervasive psychological dependence on other people but this category is different than the other ones I've looked at: without a single exception, this category consists of indicted criminal defendants whose legal teams claimed (usually unsuccessfully) that their clients had this disorder. Certainly undiagnosed mental health issues can lead to bad outcomes so maybe some of these defendants had it but but the sources here are problematic because news outlets are repeating legal claims that were disputed at trial but which this category presents as fact. We're really categorizing serial killers and others by legal defense tactic here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2021 (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/2021_June_20&oldid=1073193037"