- 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: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom.-- ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 14:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose see James Joyce, below Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, association is too vague. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The reader is to be deprived of useful information, for the sake of the application of rigorous logic to the highest degree imaginable. AtticTapestry ( talk) 10:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- That could be an option indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and listify Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Listify and delete, in order to convey the information without violating WP:OCASSOC. A list would be more useful for navigation because it actually explains the relationship. b uidh e 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:OCASSOC. Scholars and translators should be upmerged to parent. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom.-- ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 14:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep What does 'upmerge' mean? You have been bulk-emptying categories of any articles about people, on the grounds that either "We do not categorise people by other people." or else that a category is "is not a people category". Now here's one where your implied need for categories containing people to be more specific has been met. This is clearly both a 'people category' and yet one that is sub-categorized below simply being an 'other people' category, i.e. James Joyce. Yet still, you want rid. If these were upmerged to Joyce, wouldn't you then remove them altogether, as you have been doing? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have you even read the guideline, which clearly explains why these kinds of categories are so problematic? This might technically be a "people category", but it is not an appropriate one for reasons explained there. Sorry for the confusion regarding the scholars and translators. I mean for them to become subcategories of
Category:James Joyce.
212.135.65.247 (
talk)
16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- For the most obvious connection,
Nora Barnacle. Because otherwise how will you represent her (pretty obvious) association with Joyce and his works? Or
Sylvia Beach, to avoid the "wives aren't notable" dogma. Now if you see "James Joyce" as too simplistic, then I don't, but I can see a point to that. In which case the fix is to make the category more specific, which is just what this has already done.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Nora Barnacle could be placed in a Category:James Joyce family (or similar) category as recommended at the guideline. Sylvia Beach has the subjective and arbitrary problem explained in the guideline, as does Ezra Pound. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- For the most obvious connection,
Nora Barnacle. Because otherwise how will you represent her (pretty obvious) association with Joyce and his works? Or
Sylvia Beach, to avoid the "wives aren't notable" dogma. Now if you see "James Joyce" as too simplistic, then I don't, but I can see a point to that. In which case the fix is to make the category more specific, which is just what this has already done.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have you even read the guideline, which clearly explains why these kinds of categories are so problematic? This might technically be a "people category", but it is not an appropriate one for reasons explained there. Sorry for the confusion regarding the scholars and translators. I mean for them to become subcategories of
Category:James Joyce.
212.135.65.247 (
talk)
16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, including moving the scholars and translators subcategories to Category:James Joyce. Categorizing by association is too vague. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. See Beethoven, above. AtticTapestry ( talk) 10:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- That could be an option indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and listify Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Listify and delete per comment on previous CfD. b uidh e 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- Update, category content has been listified in Talk:James_Joyce#People_associated_with_James_Joyce. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 13:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom.-- ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose see James Joyce, above Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom, categorization by association is too vague. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. See Beethoven, above. AtticTapestry ( talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. The people should all be mentioned in the bio-article, but it is a long one, so that they do not stand out. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- That could be an option indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support and listify Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- There is now a list at Thomas_Telford#See_also. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 06:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder below. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 13:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- but the basis (diagnosed with) needs to be explained in a headnote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Overly verbose title. Dimadick ( talk) 17:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 06:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Last month, I successfully requested that Category:People diagnosed with dyslexia be renamed Category:People with dyslexia for consistency, and I also agree with Marcocapelle's comment on that CfD about formal diagnoses often being unverifiable. For those reasons, I want this category to be renamed as well. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - also per parent Category:People with dissociative disorder. The remaining one is Category:People diagnosed with Huntington's disease. Oculi ( talk) 13:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- but the basis (diagnosed with) needs to be explained in a headnote. Nevertheless, in many cases, the normal BLP issues are likely to arise, so that I wonder whether the category should exist. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- At first glance I do not see BLP issues with the articles currently in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Overly verbose title. Dimadick ( talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
(non-admin closure)
DannyS712 (
talk)
07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Nostalgia songs to Category:Songs about nostalgia
- Nominator's rationale: What the hell is a "nostalgia song"? The current title isn't gramatically correct at all. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per convention in Category:Songs by theme (with a few exceptions). Oculi ( talk) 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: No problem with a rename to Category:Songs about nostalgia; I even suggested it be renamed to that in its first discussion here last year. Hiddenstranger ( talk) 13:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I question that this is even a defining characteristic. What makes a song about nostalgia, as opposed to longing, the past, etc.? b uidh e 23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- It has been nominated for deletion before, see category talk page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Ə
XPLICIT
11:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People with color blindness to Category:Colorblind people
- Nominator's rationale: I just requested that the corresponding list, List of people with color blindness, be moved to List of colorblind people. I'm requesting that this category be renamed for the same reason. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wait - renaming the article should come first. And in fact convention in
Category:People by medical or psychological condition is to use 'with'.
Oculi (
talk)
11:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Oculi:But there are exceptions, such as
Category:Blind people,
Category:Deaf people and
Category:People on the autism spectrum.
- There is a very logical reason for those exceptions but you have given no justification for why this should be an exception. --
Nicholas0 (
talk)
18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Oculi:See the RM for the corresponding list for my (admittedly weak, but still) justification. Other than that, I guess I'll have to agree.-- ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 19:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is a very logical reason for those exceptions but you have given no justification for why this should be an exception. --
Nicholas0 (
talk)
18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @
Oculi:But there are exceptions, such as
Category:Blind people,
Category:Deaf people and
Category:People on the autism spectrum.
- Support, aligning with Category:Blind people which is the closest possible analogy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per consistency with the list. ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 10:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Trialpears:The RM for the list has been closed as no consensus, and this CfD has surpassed the seven-day period. How do I close it? ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 10:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Vaporgaze you (or I) should not close this discussion as we are involved making it hard to be impartial. Someone uninvolved can come around and close this discussion anytime now, but it may take a while. Just for clarity and to make it easier for an eventual closer, do you still support renaming the category given that the list was not moved? ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 10:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Trialpears:No, I no longer support the move.-- ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε 💬 12:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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.