Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27

[edit]

Category:Mental and behavioural disorders

[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. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Mental disorder. It might be speedied except for the fact that renaming of some subcategories was opposed at WP:CFDS. Note that there is also Emotional and behavioral disorders but this seems to be a term that is mainly used in education in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. I think "behavioural" is more appropriate to Emotional and behavioral disorders and this category should focus on mental disorders. There are differences between mental and behavioural disorder which the naming of this category has effectively ignored. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Great Shaker - there are? What do you understand those differences to be? Because everything that's considered a behavioural disorder is also referred to as a mental disorder, and mental disorders are characterised in part by them having behavioural impacts. The DSM5 refers to mental disorders, and the ICD11 doesn't make any distinction between the terms. So I'm really not sure what differences you're referring to. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you say, a mental disorder is characterised in part by behavioural impact, but a mental disorder such as anxiety or depression does not always result in behavioural disorder. The two do not necessarily go together as a behavioural disorder may not be the result of a mental disorder – a physical disorder can cause behavioural issues as can personality or genetic factors. It probably depends on the scope you attach to behavioural disorder. You could limit it to that resulting from mental health issues alone, but then there are aspects like anti-social behaviour which may be seen as a disorder arising from wilful action. I agree that a mental health problem is usually the cause but you cannot say it is always the case and here we need to make allowance for exceptions. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Mental disorder is the name of the article for good reason (i.e. significant heated discussion), and mental and behavioural disorders is genuinely not a name that has ever been formally proposed for it. It would also be good to more clearly distinguish from the US educational term. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Behavioural disorders' points to socially learnt disorders which are not identical to 'Mental disorders' (which are characterized by physical/metabolic causes and pharma treatments). Behaviour has to be relearned/retrained with some patience. So the two approaches in the category are reasonable! And no, Emotional and behavioral disorders are not special in the U.S. Behavioural therapy is AFAIK in numbers one of the most significant therapeutic approaches. --Just N. (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reasons given above. --Just N. (talk) 12:10, 4 November 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:Madonna (entertainer)

[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: procedural close because the category page has not been tagged to give notice of this discussion, thus the only people commenting below were here because they happened to be browsing CFD for other reasons. In any case, the discussion below shows no consensus, which is not surprising as it is only months since the previous nomination, and no new rationale was put forward by the nominator. This close is no bar to a re-nomination based on the arguments offered by SilkTork, which may be new and might gain consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "(entertainer)" not necessary since "Madonna" already links to the correct article, about the singer. All subcategories will need to be renamed as well. Theknine2 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural support this should have qualified for a speedy move after the 2020 RM discussion. I don't see a reason that the category would need disambiguation while the article does not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a disambiguation page exists, category names often contain a disambiguator even while the category's main article does not. The reason is that editors do not always visit the category page when they assign categories to articles, in particular they do not have to that when using HOTCAT. That is different from reading articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm ... the policy page WP:CAT says When an article topic requires disambiguation, any category eponymously named for that topic should include the same form of disambiguation, even if no other articles are likely to have an eponymous category. which is the opposite scenario to what we have here. Perhaps language explicitly along the lines of your comment should be added? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that is not the case because as I mentioned earlier, Mary was called The Madonna – not Madonna. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Well, I agree. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Arguments that Madonna is an alternative name for Mary are not accurate. The name Madonna ("my lady") arose in 17th century Italy to refer to works of art that represent Mary, and this still applies today. The term "my lady" is used in other languages to refer to Mary, and is sometimes used as the name of a church, such as Notre Dame in France and Canada and some other French speaking countries. In English the variation "Our Lady" is sometimes used for churches. However, while variations of "my lady" or "our lady" are used in some countries to refer to Mary herself, the instances of the Italian word Madonna being used to refer to Mary herself, rather than figurative works of art, are few. People arguing that Madonna relates to Mary herself should read Mary, mother of Jesus and Madonna (art) where it will be noted that Madonna is not given as a name for Mary, but only for works of art in which Mary appears. One of the few churches named Madonna is Madonna dell'Orto which is named not after Mary, but after a statue of Mary (a Madonna) which performed miracles. If there is still some insistence on disambiguation after becoming familiar with the correct terminology, then the disambiguation should be between Madonna the singer, and Madonna the religious icon so the religious side should direct toward Category:Virgin Mary in art rather than Category:Mary, mother of Jesus. For an encyclopedia to suggest that Madonna refers to Mary herself (as it does here: [1]) would not be appropriate as that would be perpetuating a mistake. Thankfully our articles are clear on this, and our naming of categories should be equally clear. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if this IMHO absurd nomination is just the result of being fan of that entertainer OR symptom of a self-opinionated attitude? In any case it is bad taste. And of course it would do no harm at all to hang on to Category:Madonna (entertainer) which is at least unambiguous and not irritating anyone! What a mess! --Just N. (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is the 2020s, not the 1980s. Madonna the once Queen of Pop is no longer thus, and many many Gen Z people do not know of her. Her profile is ever declining, so this gets ever more inappropriate as time goes on. It may have made sense when Wikipedia was founded in the early 2000s, but now it doesn't. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 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:Nepalese lyricists

[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: keep. After 27 days discussion there is no support for the nomination. In the discussion only the nominator is arguing in favour of the move. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To fit into Category:Songwriters by nationality. The main article is Songwriter Rathfelder (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think any of the articles make it clear whether they write the music, but almost all of them are also singers, so it would be strange if they didnt. I think we should probably merge all the lyricist categories into songwriters. The distinction is too obscure to be useful. Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Practice, at least as far as our articles is concerned, varies quite a lot between countries. In some places there are lots of composers and few songwriters and in other places the reverse. Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- there are plenty of examples of collaborations between lyricists (words) and composers (music); eg Bernie Taupin and Elton John, Clive James and Pete Atkin. A song lyric does not usually qualify as a stand-alone poem. Oculi (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a case of ensuring that lyricists and songwriters are correctly defined. Lyricist is the correct term for someone who writes the lyrics of a song. A songwriter is someone who writes lyrics but also composes music. For example, Lorenz Hart and Oscar Hammerstein were lyricists who worked with composer Richard Rodgers to form a songwriting team. The Lennon/McCartney partnership was another songwriting team but in which both were individually songwriters. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction between lyricists and songwriters appears to escape most editors. A large majority of those characterised as lyricists appear to also write the music and often sing the song as well. I could just purge the categories, but I think that would leave quite a lot of them empty. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not much informed about Nepalese music culture. But I know very well that a lot of excellent composers are not qualifyiung as good lyricists. And I'd say that this fact is probably the same wordlwide. So we need a separate cat about lyricists by country. And please be aware that some are active and be sorted in both categories. It is NOT binary (NOT either --or). --Just N. (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No merging. Same as No Great Shaker. If there is no split of labour as for example in Western music industry connections that is mostly for time economy reasons. Most musicians are not really double talents. -- Just N. (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large numbers of popular singers write their own songs - all over the world. Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 27 October 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:College football winless seasons

[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. – Fayenatic London 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A trivial characteristic. Given that there are nearly 600 articles in this category and a great majority of them are from seasons in which the team in question only played a few games in the pre-modern period, I question whether many of these articles are themselves notable. Either way, going winless is not an accomplishment. User:Namiba 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:TRIVIA in the extreme. I don't see how this helps a reader who goes to the parent category which is a repository of season reviews. If the information has any use, it should be in list format only. As Namiba says, there must be considerable GNG doubts about many of the articles included. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there may be something to the argument that many of these articles shouldn't exist, but this isn't the right forum for that topic. So long as we have the articles, this is a defining characteristic of the seasons. If this were a list, I would suggest that a "season" needs to have a minimum of 5 games to be considered a season, but there's neither need nor ability to have such a rule for a category. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it a defining characteristic and not trivial? What makes it defining versus 1 win seasons or 10 win seasons?--User:Namiba 12:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. This is completely unrelated to the question whether these articles should exist because there are also articles about non-winless seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I view this as more than trivial. Newspapers and other media write-ups usually tend to include mentions of the fact that the team went winless, upon the recap after the final game of the season. Having an undefeated season isn't nominated here, so clearly people think that's a defining characteristic, but have not indicated any compelling reasons why the inverse is somehow not defining. WP:TRIVIA is a broad-stroke guideline that can be loosely interpreted to fit a narrative; only 4 !votes have been cast so far on this and it's split 2/2. Clearly, WP:TRIVIA isn't always viewed the same. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, the thing of it is that it is somewhat indiscriminate. A lion's share of the articles are either from the early 20th/late 19th century, when the sport was differently structured, or from the 2020–2021 pandemic season when teams played deeply unusual schedules. Going winless in those periods isn't defining. Maybe it's defining otherwise, but with teams from all levels of competition lumped in together, it's hard to say. I would note that the NFL does not have a similar category, although those seasons are far more rare and more frequently discussed as a defining characteristic. Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. --Just N. (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Going winless is definitely a defining characteristic for an American football season (just like being undefeated would be, too). If there isn't a comparable category for winless NFL seasons, then there probably should be one created for them, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 27 October 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:Jōdo Shinshū Buddhist monks

[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 and purge of non-priest members. bibliomaniac15 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no monks in Jodo Shinshu. Shinran (founder) was a Tendai monk prior to founding Jodo Shinshu, but he never became a "Jodo Shinshu monk" (he considered himself "neither layman nor monk"). Thus, the category should be renamed to reflect the fact that there are no Shinshu monks. The same goes for Jodo Shu. Honen (founder) was a Tendai monk, but he left Tendai and he didn't create a new monk-sangha. There are Jodo Shu priests, not monks. Sigvid (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that too. Nonetheless there are no monks in Shin, so either they are priests or they do not belong in the category of clerics. There are many sources writing about Shin priests, but this is perhaps the one that makes it the most clear that there are priests and no monks. The author is contrasting "overt" to "covert" Shin but it matters not for this particular point: ""Another core element Shin Buddhists share is an emphasis on the lay religious life of the househoulder (zaike) as opposed to that of the monastic. In overt Shin, however, there are professional clergy who are financially supported by members of their temples (danka). These professional Shin priests commonly charge for ritual services, such as funerals. In overt shin, a professional clergy is not regarded as inconsistent with lay religious life" (From Secrecy’s Power: Covert Shin Buddhists in Japan and Contradictions of Concealment page 172). As for Jodo Shu I cannot find any sources which are as clear on the point, albeit there are of course many sources who speak of Jodo (Shu) priests (searching for "jodo priest" in Google Books gives plenty of relevant hits). Sigvid (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the general definition of "clergy" it would be ok, in the sense that it would not be wrong to categorize these priests as clergy. (Clergy#Buddhism should mention Buddhist priests, but that's a job for another day) By comparison, the categorization of them as monks is empirically wrong/incorrect. But I'm not sure how/why "clergy" would be better than "priest" in this case? Sigvid (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 27 October 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:Books about mathematics

[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. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I haven't been able to find a distinction between these two categories. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 27 October 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:Psychiatric disease and disorder templates

[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 to Category:Mental disorder templates. bibliomaniac15 04:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, common name, aligning with Mental disorder. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Consistency and simplicity together. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial keep: psychiatric disorders as a name has the benefit of delineating conditions that are within the realm of psychiatry vs clinical psychology. Psychiatrists are rarely treating depression, but they'll see a lot of schizophrenia and ADHD. However, it would mean the exact same thing and be more concise if it's shortened to "Psychiatric disorder templates". People rarely make a distinction between psychiatric disease and psychiatric disorders (I literally can only think of Alzheimer's, and no one actually cares if you refer to it as a disorder). I think there's value to this as a distinct category, but I would prefer to see it as a subcategory of a broader psychology disorder category. I think I'm essentially proposing there is a mental disorder template category, which includes all of them, and a non-diffusing category for psychiatric disorder templates. And ultimately for the article categorisation to match that (it'd be incredible if the psychology/iatry categories weren't an actual hell-pit). --Xurizuri (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:03, 27 October 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:High school football competitions in the United States

[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 to Category:High school football games in the United States. bibliomaniac15 04:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the explanatory text, the "competitions" category is for non-all-star games, and the "games" category is for all-star games. This distinction makes zero sense, and is not one supported in the individual articles (Kirkwood–Webster Groves Turkey Day Game is a game, Pennridge–Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Football Classic is a competition? You figure it out.). If kept, then the current "competitions" category should be renamed "games" and the current "games" category should be renamed "All-Star games", but I'm not convinced such a distinction is even necessary, or makes sense. Notable high school football games can all be in the same category with no need to replicate the list at All-star_game#High school all-star games. SnowFire (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merging Target cat name should be 'High school football competitions in the United States' and not vice versa. 'High school football games' is not a name that depicts that was is meant: competitions. --Just N. (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - the "Games"/"Competitions" distinction is meaningless and arbitrary. I prefer "football games" as the title as a more common phrase, but no strong preference between the two. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "games and competitions" as too long. Category names should be short. A compromise word might be "events", but I do not really care. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: - to be clear, do you oppose a merge of the two categories, or simply oppose naming the merged category "games and competitions"? The default merge suggested by the nomination would be just to "games", and the prominently suggested reverse merge option suggests "competitions" - I do not think "games and competitions" is a likely result of this CFD anyway, and I hope that the close will do the important thing of merging these categories that have an arbitrary distinction at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Also, will this ever be closed? Its been open nearly three months. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 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:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified

[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 to Category:Impulse-control disorders and populate. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as an obvious case of WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (as nom) Peterkingiron's solution may work as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At second thought, according to Impulse-control disorder very many mental disorders contain elements of impulsiveness, hence the DSM handbook deliberately created a rest category. Renaming to Category:Impulse-control disorders does not really help. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is, at best, poorly describing the classification in DSM-5, and ignoring the ICD-10/ICD-11 (despite being mostly aligned to the ICD-10/11 model). So, rename to Category:Impulse-control disorders and include relevant disorders. The DSM has a category, "Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorders". ICD-11 splits those into 2 categories, "Impulse control disorders" and "Disruptive behaviour or dissocial disorders". ICD-10 has an equivalent of the former, "Habit and impulse disorders", and the latter is scattered through other categories. I think it makes the most sense to follow the ICD-10/ICD-11 format, as everyone will recognise it in that form. Regardless, the current situation is ridiculous: it's a category based on a diagnosis in a system that's shockingly outdated (assuming that the DSM-IV-TR also hasn't been misrepresented); there is no parent category based on the classification that the residual now comes under; and it doesn't match common medical use or common lay use. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:54, 28 November 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.

Safavid governors

[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. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two governors in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 27 October 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:Jamaican girl groups

[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: double merge, also to Category:Girl groups. Note 1: Category:Jamaican women singers is diffused by century. Note 2: as stated below, Category:Girl groups by nationality has many other small sub-cats, so all those with just 1 or 2 members should be nominated following this CFD. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There seems to only be one - two sisters, already in Category:Jamaican musical duos Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 27 October 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:Utopists

[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: partial diffuse to Category:Authors of utopian literature, and perhaps to others like it if these appear justified, although none such have been suggested; then move subcats up into parent, and delete what is left. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Made-up term for a category encompassing vastly disparate people Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Utopist is an actual word. Look it up in a good dictionary. Whether the people listed are disparate is unimportant. What matters is whether they can all be correctly described as holding a utopian philosophy, and whether that is considered a defining characteristic of the person.--Srleffler (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally would use this as a search word if I were looking for More or Campanella. What does user Orange Mike suggest we should use instead ? --Anne97432 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 27 October 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:Establishments in the State of the Teutonic Order by century

[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) 06:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 century category exists. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 27 October 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:Brazilian jazz (genre) musicians

[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. In any case this category cannot be considered without Category:Brazilian jazz (genre) musicians by instrument and its sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the musicians are actually Brazilian. The anchor article Brazilian jazz says "Brazilian Jazz can refer to both a genre, largely influenced by bossa nova and samba, that exists in many nations and the jazz music of Brazil itself." I dont think this works. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 27 October 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:Artist skateboarders

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Category:Artist skateboarders

Category:I Am a Singer (South Korean TV series) contestants

[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 per WP:PERFCAT. Since the contestants are available in list form in the I Am a Singer article, no information is lost. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only content. Rathfelder (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:16, 27 October 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:Artists by record label

[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 to Category:Recording artists by label. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article Recording artist is just a redirect to Musician. Using the term "artist" clearly confuses a lot of editors. If this is agreed 1,243 subsidiary categories to follow. Rathfelder (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was discussed many, many years ago at this Cfd and the compromise was to move to the current name, in part due to the fact that not all acts on a label are necessarily musicians (George Carlin in Category:Atlantic Records artists, for example). This convention has been relatively stable since and I believe the context doesn't make it that confusing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just removed "artist" categories from large numbers of articles about musicians from non-English speaking countries. It clearly does confuse editors. We dont use the term "doctor" as a category because it is ambiguous. The same arguments apply here. Rathfelder (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the context of this category. Again, George Carlin, Bill Engvall, Bill Hicks, Bob Newhart, etc., are not musicians. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how changing a record label category will prevent others from putting biography articles for musical acts or what not into "Fooian artists" categories. Both Rolling Stone and Billboard call them artists, so the confusion will continue regardless of the category scheme because musicians are referred to as artists all the time outside of Wikipedia.[2] StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a well established policy that we do not use ambiguous terms in categorisation. That is why we dont use the terms "Doctor" or "Physician". Of course it does not entirely prevent confusion, but it helps. Wikipedia is quite influential. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Alt rename to "recording artists" or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 00:44, 27 October 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:Southern Mongol sportspeople

[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. I checked and all members are already in the target Category:Sportspeople from Inner Mongolia. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, as a trivial intersection of ethnicity and occupation. Southern Mongols just redirects to the Mongol ethnicity, and with a few exceptions there does not appear to be any emphasis on ethnicity in any of the entries of this category. I was contemplating making this CFD a redirect to Category:Sportspeople from Inner Mongolia, which seems where the subjects of these articles are from and what may have been the creator's original intention, but all the articles in the nominated category are already in the aforementioned one so such a discussion would have been rendered redundant. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:21, 27 October 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_October_27&oldid=1069221395"