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. MER-C 18:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer since most districts only contain a single city (if any at all). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2020 (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:Aptronyms
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. MER-C 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Our category creator certainly saw this nomination coming. This is a trivial, though admittedly interesting, category, for a non-defining characteristic of these individuals. It might work as a list (assuming there's sourcing covering it). Without, it seems like a potential BLP violation (especially for Anthony Weiner). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely not gonna fight the nominator on this one. Like he/she mentioned, I don't mind if this gets deleted but I just wanted to say, for most of these I went off the list of examples in the aptronym article, which, for what it's worth, is at least referenced, including the Anthony Weiner one (I'm unsure as to how well those references would hold up under scrutiny, but that's another matter for another time.) Americanfreedom (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Americanfreedom, I only noticed after nominating the category that our article on aptronyms includes these examples you categorized. I think that page is the appropriate way to handle this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I couldn't agree more, my original thinking was that, if this was kept, people would keep adding to it. Like maybe there's someone not on the list of examples but still had aptronymic name.Americanfreedom (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV category. Dimadick (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaving open the possibility of listifying. If listified, it should be as a table, in which one column explains why the name was so appropriate. Most of the examples seem to relate to the appropriateness of surnames, whereas the definition in the headnote refers to given name (i.e. forenames). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2020 (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:Mortals in the Cthulhu Mythos
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. MER-C 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of characters in the Cthulhu Mythos are "mortal". However, that term is rarely applied to them. These articles and redirects belong in the main category. ―SusmuffinTalk 15:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2020 (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:The Loud House video games
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. MER-C 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty category. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American television series by production location
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. More for procedural reasons. bibliomaniac15 03:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:American television series by production location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. For many series we're just recording the address of a studio (The Mary Tyler Moore Show was set in Minneapolis but filmed in a studio in Los Angeles). And the subcats all say "filmed", which is problematic for taped sitcoms. Fuddle (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Fuddle (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is just the parent. The subcats all need to be listed. Oculi (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced that the filming location is not defining for a television series. Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Oculi. Deleting this category without deleting the subcategories does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to nominate multiple categories at the same time. Yes, include the subcats in the discussion. Fuddle (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See for example the nomination right below. And yes, you need to tag them as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (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.
Mayors of 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:Merge as amendedTimrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: If I understand correctly, you support Alblasserdam, Albrandswaard, Amravati and Asahikawa. Do you also support Antofagasta and Arequipa, since the targets of these are not overpopulated? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I haven't checked the details, but I'm fine with those where the target cats are lightly populated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the French and Italian nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as amended) -- usual outcome for small categories. If we can get a population of five, they can be re-created, but that seems unlikely. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2020 (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:Prime Time Entertainment Network
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 but purge. – FayenaticLondon 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a real network; alternately, stations can be purged with programs staying. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge stations per nom's alt proposal. The rationale for deletion is unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2020 (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:War Cross with Sword (Norway)
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. MER-C 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, redundant category layer with just one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is a clear case of an unnecessary category. The target will host a series of award-recipient categories and articles on the awards themselves. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (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:Homosociality
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that lends itself to WP:CATV and NPOV violations, and that is already being used in such a way. Of the articles in it, aside from the eponymous article, only Bro culture, Bromance, David and Jonathan, and Womance include verifiable material about homosociality. This category is redundant to Category:Friendship and is hardly a defining characteristic per WP:OVERCAT.
There are problems with the label "homosocial". Despite its claimed meaning by Wikipedia, I could not find anything about it in general sociology sources. It is also not used in psychology. Normally, "friendship" and other terms would be used in these fields. Instead, the term is from the smaller fields of gender studies and queer theory. This source bears out why this label is non-neutral and carries connotations that make it inappropriate as a category: "A more complex, refined and dynamic view on homosociality is found in Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s (1985) classic study Between men...."To draw the “homosocial” back into the orbit of “desire,” of the potentially erotic, then, is to hypothesize the potential unbrokeness of a continuum between homosocial and homosexual – a continuum whose visibility, for men, in our society, is radically disrupted."""In the literature, this concept is mainly used as a tool to understand and dissect male friendships and men’s collective attempts to uphold and maintain power and hegemony. The most common use of the concept is inspired by Sedgwick’s approach, and the whole discussion and idea of a homoerotic continuum. However, most authors also stress and focus on the radical disruption of this continuum and the consequences of this disruption for homophobia, and a fragile but power-seeking masculinity.""The overall picture from the research, however, promotes the notion that homosociality clearly is a part and extension of hegemony, thus serving to always reconstruct and safeguard male interests and power."Crossroads-talk- 01:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we do have both a Friendship and Homosociality article, I'm not seeing that we need a homosociality category. "Category:Friendship" is sufficient. And judging when to add the homosociality category is more debatable, as seen below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the larger part of the rationale is sourced criticism on the concept. That should be discussed in article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the article can benefit from adding material along these lines, those quotes are not so much about criticism of the concept itself, but rather show how it is actually used. It is not simply about same-sex social interactions; it carries connotations about hegemony and a homoerotic continuum. This shows why categorization based on this term is not appropriate. Crossroads-talk- 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads-talk- 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nonsense deletion based on nominators own ignorant POV bias. Homosociality is a notable topic and the category covers pages related to the topic. Their idea seems to be that Wikipedia should erase everything that covers same-sex interactions in anything but strict and separate sexual or "friendship" articles with no nuance anywhere. If he has an issue with the name of the category (because clearly the topic exists), he could have asked for it to be simply changed, but that's not what he did, he wants it deleted outright because HEDONTLIKEIT.★Trekker (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "and the category covers pages related to the topic" Crossroads argues that several of these pages have no "verifiable material about homosociality". Have you checked that such material is already included? Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Im aware of what the word means. Crossroads seems to be making a nonsensical argument that the exact word needs to be stated in the article for the categorization to be valid. If an article is about male-male interactions it is by definition about homosociality. It seems to be a bad faith argument since his main issue the last couple of days appears to be that he doesn't like (or possibly doesn't understand) the concept. He seems to be under the impression that every same-sex interaction that doesnt involve sex is considered "friendship" somehow, (ignoring that interactions between two or more people of the same sex can be negative, or simply neutral).★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If an article is about male-male interactions it is by definition about homosociality.". Not by definition and not necessarily. It is only true why viewed through a particular lens. A perfectly valid way of categorising "an article is about male-male interactions" is to say that it is about friendship. Another perfectly valid way of categorising "an article is about male-male interactions" is to say that it is about dominance/submission. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said makes little sense to me. Some people here seem to be implying that its simply wrong to categorize or describe articles in a interaction-gendered way. That there are no, and should be no, words for describing the general concept of "sometimes people of the same sex interact non-sexually". We shouldn't just split up everything neatly into smaller boxes and ignore the broader topic. To me that would be like ignoring everything covering homosexuality because we can split it into gay and lesbian.★Trekker (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is determined by reliable sources, not personal feelings. As sources do not treat same-sex friendship as distinct from friendship, there is no need for a category on that basis. As for "If an article is about male-male interactions it is by definition about homosociality", no that is absolutely not the case, and why I quoted a source at such length. I know same-sex interactions can be neutral or negative, but that's irrelevant since "homosociality" is not used in that way, either in sources or on Wikipedia. Crossroads-talk- 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since my vote is "Keep", is a mystery to me why Trekker is cross with me. To her points: it is arguable that "friendship" is the broader category; it is also arguable that "homosociality" is the "smaller box". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - avoiding excessively small boxes is part of my rationale per WP:OVERCAT. Crossroads-talk- 19:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a fuller discussion on the main article page. Am leaning towards upmerge to Friendship at this time though unless I hear more compelling arguments to the contrary in that space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Friendship. LL's vote to keep pending discussion presupposes that there is a current discussion on homosociality, which there is not. This is a neologism of about 50 years ago, for which main article is a bad one, confusing it with sexual relationships and bringing in other ill-defined neologisms. If someone can show that this is a well accepted sociological concept, I will withdraw, but I do not see that in the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is not kept, merge is obviously a better solution than delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I came in intending to endorse a merge, feeling that perhaps the category (despite its being well accepted in the scholarly world) might be too niche and subjective, but while some of the articles in this category may also belong in Category:Friendship, articles like Old boy network, Bohemian Grove, or one of our articles related to engagement or arranged marriage which are relevant to homosociality and referenced in works about it, would not be appropriate there. The topics overlap but are not synonymous or subset. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 28 September 2020 (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.