< April 13 April 15 >

April 14

Subtypes of incest in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above close was careless. I will leave the result as: merge the first, but relist the others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Twincest in fiction to Category:Incest in fiction
  • Propose merging Category:Cousincest in fiction to Category:Incest in fiction
  • Propose merging Category:Cousincest in film to Category:Incest in film
Nominator's rationale: Given that these categories are small and there are not independent categories called Category:Twincest or Category:Cousincest, I think these new categories should just be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (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:Incestuals

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. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I presume that an "incestual" is a person who has committed incest? Category:People involved in incest was deleted by consensus here, and this seems to be all but duplicating that. We generally don't categorize people by their sexual behaviour, marital status, etc. An exception is when the behaviour amounts to a crime that the person is convicted of, as with Category:People convicted of incest. A problem with the nominated category generally is that the word "incest" has a definite negative connotation, and it could be applied to people in cultures where intrafamily marriage was considered normal, or expected. (Awan (religious figure), the sister and wife of Cain, is included in the category? Really?—we're going to call her an incestual, when (according to the religious tradition) she was part of the second generation of humans to ever exist? The whole point is that was no one else who was not a sibling who she could have been married to!—this was the start of the human race.) On the other end of the spectrum, there could be BLP issues if this was ever applied to a living person. See also this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2016 (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.

Categories:Medical and health organizations by medical condition/by medical specialty

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merger Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition and Category:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty
Nominator's rationale: These categories overlap and the distinction between the two is subjective and arbitrary. Not sure which to prefer, but on the whole "by medical condition" seems more defining. Some medical conditions involve more than one specialty. Specialties are culturally defined and vary from time to time and from place to place. Medical conditions probably better defined.Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a way of tagging categories for mergers. Any advice?
I think there are instructions on the CFD instructions page: you need to select a rename target and do a multiple nom, both to the same target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that specialities are branches of medicine; conditions are named diseases, but the organisations are neither.Rathfelder (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2016 (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:Young Turks movement

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Young Turks. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is just called Young Turks because it's the primary topic. If we're worried about confusing it with other topics of the same name I think a simple heading on the top of the page will be sufficient. Charles Essie (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Charles Essie: we have many precedents for requiring categories to be unambiguous even if an article name reflects a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Otherwise, the danger is that editors may add the category at the foot of an article and not check that it is for the same topic. This is particularly liable to happen where the name is used in popular culture, e.g. the media channel and record label in this case. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The original Young Turks are so obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that it is quite unlikely someone would throw in Donald Rumsfeld or Cenk Uygur. --PanchoS (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2016 (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:Television series by Lucasfilm

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney acquired Lucasfilm in 2012, so having this category merged into Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television, will make the category the home of all series owned, produced or distributed by Disney, ABC, Touchstone, Saban, Marvel, and other Disney companys. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (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:Social movement organization

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, without prejudice to a follow-up nomination to merge the category contents to a different category or to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the category remains a bit problematic, as a WP:SETCAT listing disctinct organizations that may be considered "social movement organizations," it should at least be a plural title. PanchoS (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Well, "Civic" or "civil society" organizations cover a much broader spectrum of organizations, possibly most non-profits, but per some definitions even including a number of for-profits. Avoiding that massive redundancy is why Category:Civic and political organizations IMHO needs to be replaced by more narrowly defined sets of categories. Now while this one is much narrower in scope, I'm indeed unsure whether it is particularly useful. Finally, whether an organization is at the core of a social movement or not seems a bit subjective (Social movement organization only gives a few examples.) On the other hand it might be pretty useful for voluntary associations that aren't legally institutionalized organizations. As I said, I'm unsure. All I'm sure of is that it needs to be plural. ;-) --PanchoS (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for supporting my limited proposal, but are you seriously suggesting all civil society organizations were Social movement organizations? Did you even bother to read what the latter is about? "The concepts are the same" seems to me a particularly ignorant remark, as there rarely are two concepts that are identical definitions and carry identical connotations. Sure, concepts often overlap, and we therefore need to figure out, which concepts are the most suitable ones for categorization, but "All the same, so merge" is exactly not how we're getting forward at CfD. --PanchoS (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2016 (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:Writers who have returned the Sahitya Akademi Award

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. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Writers who have returned the Sahitya Akademi Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF as returning this award has not been the commonly and consistently defining factor of these people. It was just created out of WP:Recentism. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 14 April 2016 (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:Films set in a fictional populated places

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. In case a better replacement gains approval e.g. at WikiProject Film, the current members are Big Hero 6 (film) and Zootopia. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost empty category. Not really a notable concept. JDDJS (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Films set in a fictional country is also exist.. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2016 (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:Companies subject to BDS actions

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) 03:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was WP:G4 deleted, the deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 6, and as a result brought here. This is a purely administrative action on my part; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the Wikipedia pages associated with that category before delete were: Caterpillar_Inc., Veolia, Orange_S.A., HeidelbergCement, G4S, SodaStream. Each of those have matured content giving details about that companies relationship to divestment or boycott actions. This list likely does not encompas all effected companies but these are the only ones I had researched before someone elected a speedy delete. Cyphunk (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does help. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The main article is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename probably to something more specific and repopulate -- Boycott seems to me too vague to provide a category: it merely means that some campaign group decided that a company was misbehaving and campaigned against it. There are cases of companies sanctioned (e.g. by US) for trading (e.g. with Iran or Iraq). Such companies probably require a more specific category, such as suggested below for Israel and above for South Africa. Companies that divest from a particular country due to campaigning against them, again related to the target country. We might perhaps keep the present category as a container for more specific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: I agree Boycott alone is isolated. Most of the companies from the category had large investors divest, others were subject to notable international boycott movements. The "BDS movement" encompasses boycott and divestment acts under one group. Anyone could start a "movement" and claim they had agency in unorginized actions. The difference here is that the BDS organization counts 20+ NGO and social groups from Palestinian civil society. -- Still I understand some questions with how to properly organize the topics. Perhaps their should be a parent category "International opposition to Israeli Occupation". Then my work could continue with adding companies effected by Boycott or Divestment under a specific category such as: "Companies subjected to Pro-Palestinian Divestment and Boycott", "Companies effected by Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement". Alternatively I could see a highly general category such as "Israel Divestment and Boycott" and then linking both companies subjected and related movements. Cyphunk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow if kept. Companies that have actually divested assets due to the campaign might be a valid category. However NGOs do not have power to impose sanctions and what one person may boycott, another may not. If we do keep this, it should be expressed as an "anti-Israel" boycott. However, I might now support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: The category name suggested should be in the reverse. So something like "Companies divested from due to Israels Occupation". Or perhaps better "Divestment due to Israeli Occupation". The companies listed in original category had larger institutions divest their investments from them as a result of that companies actions in relation to Israel's Occupation. But SodaStream's case I don't recall divestment being the related element but instead it was large scale International Boycott that lead to the company relocating. Cyphunk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a different renaming for a company pulling out. (Individual trades of a company's stock is not notable though, IMO.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (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.

Histories of colonial India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:British India by period, merge others. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's been a general "vibe" at CFD lately that categories for the history of former political entities are not needed and that we can simply merge to the categories named after the defunct entities. So how about these? I suppose this approach could potentially bring much of Category:History by former country into question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this construction before, it didn't look too weird to me, considering that the former country category is a history category in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern would be that someone who saw "History of FOO by period" would be compelled to create a "History of FOO" as a natural parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2016 (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.
More