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.
keep delete nomination is again conflating criminality with scandal. They are different, as a reading of the various documented articles here clearly shows. A scandal is something that is notorious in the public eye, regardless of whether there is a crime. The articles clearly show scandal. Not being convicted of something is no reason to ignore reliable source material. See Sex scandal for discussion. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the nomination is: keep notable scandals (that permit a scandal article in its own right), don't keep biographies with a non-notable scandal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you would only be happy if this category just contained the 6 or 7 such articles. This is hardly helpful to the readers of WP seeking such information, not knowing that WP editors expect them to read articles on every politician to try to gather up the facts. This is simply silliness, not required for other subjects categorized in WP. Is it 'political' or 'sex' that so twists the mind here? Just more whitewashing, it seems. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per nom I agree that there is no conviction or sex crime required for a scandal, just lots of publicity. But the current inclusion criteria are far too vague. Bob Allen (Florida politician) was an LGBT politician who was caught for solicitation of a male police officer. He paid a fine and was otherwise free. Not much of a scandal, nor lasting impact in politics. Frank Artiles was a politician whose PAC had hired two women based on their previous affiliations with Hooters and Playboy, rather than their political experience. The scandal concerned his hiring practices and expenses, not his sex life. Dimadick (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is up to the reader to determine what is notable and what is not. Not us. They are all notable due to the designation as politicians. What kind of sex and with whom is unimportant.Johnsagent (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination will leave only 6 or 7 articles in this category, gutting and destroying it. Scandals are ALWAYS about people, by definition. Hmains (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is just too subjective in application. The word "scandal" is tossed around rather freely. I really am wondering if maybe we shouldn't be categorising using "scandal" as a criteria, at all. If kept, inclusion should be as narrow as possible, supported by clear references. (Not merely some attention-grabbing headline, for example.) - jc3723:56, 25 March 2022 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are over 20 songs in this category with the title "Someday". Are such songs really about days? WP:SHAREDNAME and just plain overcategorization by a very generalized topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The songs refer to either specific days of the week, specific holidays or reflect hope about about an undetermined day when the protagonist of the song will solve a certain problem. In all cases it gives the protagonist in the song a certain perspective about these days. The songs aren't just about his/her emotions alone, but also put them in a certain time frame. User:Kjell Knudde10:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The problem is not with the actual category but whether the pages in the category have supporting evidence to be included in said category, as per WP:CATV. This is only an issue if the editor adding the category is introducing original research or not at least skimming the article beforehand to learn about the song's true meaning, therefore adding an incorrect category. There are some cases where "day" is being used metaphorically, but this problem is not rooted within the category itself. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isupport this as an alternative to straight-up deletion. All of the subcategories and their entries should be kept, which appear to be more relevant than this category itself. Maybe this should just be a container category?Sean Stephens (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep but as a container category only (Birthdays is a reasonable cat). All of the entries are either NOT defining or included because of the word in the title. I Don't Like Mondays (see comment above) is not about 'Mondays' but about an event that happened on a Monday. It's also in about 5/6 other cats of varying relevance. For those that say purge, please do so, lead by example, please, I will remove when I see inappropriate entries and have done for several years. As an aside, perhaps WP:SONGS should be amended to limit the number of about categories a single article can be in, at least that would help the relevant cats, if any, float to the top. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects, in 24 hours time I am going to go through this category and remove any entry which does not mention clearly in the text that the ‘song is about a day.’
This will mean any entry which I find in contradiction of WP:Categorization which states Para 2, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.
I will also remove any article which is also in a subcat of Category:Songs about days along with any redirects, for obvious reasons, and instrumentals (which are not songs).
Delete per Richhoncho. Additional examples: "One Day I'll Fly Away" where 'day' is a substitute for time or possibly epoch (also the case with "Oh Happy Day" and several others; "Happy Days (TV theme)" is a similar example, but it's not about a day, nor is the TV program. The category itself states that it is "A list of songs about days of the week, including specific days." For that, the child cats of Songs about Mondays, etc. make prefect sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Worth reviewing now that contents have been purged to just 6 songs and 2 sub-cats. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – FayenaticLondon22:04, 5 March 2022 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: A rather unnecessary name right now as there is a subcategory "Tunnels in London". Bridges and tunnels aren't grouped together like this for any other city from what I have seen. As to category changes, it would be best to put "Railway tunnels in London" into "Tunnels in London" and "Tunnels in London" would just need to have the category "Transport infrastructure in London", and apart from that, no major changes would have to be done. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have already put "Railway tunnels in London" into "Tunnels in London" because that should be done irrespective of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - many bridge types are tunnels. (Are we merely relying on the name of the architecture?) But, as far as I can tell, the various category trees don't seem to address this issue, so for now, support, I guess. - jc3700:17, 26 March 2022 (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:LGBT history in the United States by region
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.
(reply added after relisting) The United States simply has a lot of content throughout en.wp, that is unavoidable. In this case with 9 subcategories and 54 articles it is not bad at all. Besides for order and overlook it does not help to keep only one redirect and one template apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2022 (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.
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 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.
Comment surely that's changing the topic of the category? Sport is sport in general (and would not be pluralised), sports would mean individual sports, no? Grutness...wha?02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. There appear to be a mishmash of "sport" and "sports" subcategories in both this folder and the equivalent US one. Looks like a general tidy-up is needed. Grutness...wha?02:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Canada's really kind of a mishmash. There's really no right or wrong answer here, and you regularly see both "sport" and "sports" used in different sources — the government department responsible for athletic programs is called Sport Canada rather than Sports Canada, but media are more likely to use "sports" rather than "sport" (e.g. the main television sports channels are "The Sports Network" and "Sportsnet"), so both sides of a sport vs. sports argument can point to different sources as proof that their preference is more "standard". We have the same problem with date formatting: government style tends toward "British" DMY, while media style leans more strongly toward "American" MDY, so both sides of the date formatting argument can point to "proof" that their preference is more "standard" — so the only rule we've ever been able to get consensus for in Canadian articles is "either date format is acceptable, and other than fixing internal inconsistencies within a single article, articles should never be changed to force the opposite of the existing date format".
I'm personally inclined to treat media usage as more definitive for actual Canadian speech than government officialese, but that's me: other Canadians might very well prefer to follow the government usage. (The anonymous IP in 2017 who argued that we should use "sport" because "sports" is an "Americanism" is, however, far too typical: most of the time, "we should take every opportunity we can to remove American influences from our culture by always automatically aligning ourselves with British usage in any matter where American and British usage differ" is the only reason that's actually given for why we should write "sport" or "DMY". Yet somehow nobody ever argues that we should also say "lift" instead of "elevator" or "lorry" instead of "truck", but I digress.) But either way, I'd recommend that whichever form is chosen here, the other one should be kept as a categoryredirect regardless. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should use "sportS", because we should not be using Britishism in all cases, as Canadian English is not British English, as some people in the Commonwealth seem to assume. Though I think the government uses "sport" because it is the same in French and English, thus commonality, and not because it looks British and not American. As for the date thing, I tend to prefer the logical version (ie. ordered in order) versus the idiosyncratic version (ie. US, just like its measurement system, a mess of different things) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So I looked at the RM linked in the nom, and it seems to be "I have heard...", which is WP:OR. We need verifiablereliable sources for this. With that in mind, speedy rename to match article name, but no prejudice against a renom if such sources can be found. - jc3700:35, 26 March 2022 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is A) misnamed and B) redundant. The first, because really it should be "Controversial animation films"; and two, because the difference between "controversial animated films" and "controversial live picture films" is not one worth having two separate categories RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem of the category, and also of the target, is its vagueness. Films may be controversial for all sorts of reasons, categories should indicate the reason why a film is controversial. So the nominated category might be deleted, and the target containerized. But if that does not happen a merge will not solve the problem, then a rename to Category:Controversial animation films is the best action. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any rationale here of why a subcategory for animated films has no valid uses. Some of these controversies seem ridiculous to me, but so do other film controversies. Dimadick (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2022 (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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale:merge as a trivial intersection, for types of gardens it does not matter whether the country of origin was a historical empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (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.
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.
Delete but check the sub-cat is adequately categorised. This is an unnecessary category level; and the subcat has an unnecessarily complicated name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2022 (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.
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 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:Media coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the games is of the Rocko's Modern Life franchise, at it is the only game ever made based solely on the IP. The other two are Nicktoons games that have elements of the show. Essentially, WP:SMALLCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2022 (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.
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 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Geography and place templates
