Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Category:Paintings by William Hogarth[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:Works by William Hogarth. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the items in this category either aren't paintings or are both paintings and prints. Renaming this to "Works by" would also allow Hogarth's book to come in from the cold (it was cast adrift in 2007 and has been whining and scratching at the door ever since). Yomanganitalk 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not just create the category and move the non-paintings into it? The Bench (Hogarth) is clearly a painting, and should remain in the current category, which can be a sub-cat of the Works by one. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bench is both a painting and a print. There are about five articles in that category that are only paintings. I'm not sure what is gained by putting paintings into a subcategory when many of the articles would have to appear in two sub-categories: Category:Paintings by William Hogarth and Category:Prints by William Hogarth Yomanganitalk 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: How about (i) renaming this as Category:Paintings and prints by William Hogarth, as there would be little benefit in either separating or duplicating categories for his paintings and his prints; (ii) making it a sub-cat of Category:Works by William Hogarth which would also include the book? – Fayenatic London 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Works" category would then contain only the book and the subcategory. Yomanganitalk 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I am not sure whether the "Works" category would be justifiable because of WP:SMALLCAT. BTW I have added a comment about the types of his works, highlighting the book, in the intro of the List of works by William Hogarth. – Fayenatic London
  • Rename to Category:Paintings and prints by William Hogarth, which would be more comfortable as a sub-cat of the current parent categories for "Paintings" and "Prints". I do not think it would be ideal to have somebody's "Works" category within those head categories (and I suggest nominating Category:Works by M. C. Escher for similar renaming if this is agreed). My !vote is without prejudice to creating a parent "Works" category. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Logical move if you understand the process to produce the various items. Hogarth was a painter and an engraver (but not a printer). The description on the category's page should read "Paintings and engravings by the English artist William Hogarth." Turning a painting or sketch into an engraving suitable for printing was a great skill, and could result in derivative works of some originality. The products could be subtly different depending on the medium, e.g. A Rake's Progress. The same issue applies to the works by fellow artist-engraver Category:Paintings by John Martin. Ephebi (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The emphasis on always "paintings" is one of the weaknesses of our visual arts coverage. I'd like to see all such categories broadened; very few artists need more than one category for their works. I should note also Category:Paintings and prints by Albrecht Dürer, Category:Works by M. C. Escher or Category:Art by William Blake, plus others; there is precedent for those routes. What we need to do is rename the parent Category:Paintings by artist, although this already has a note "For convenience, individual works in other media, eg prints, by an artist with several articles on paintings may be included in these categories. Also see Category:Sculptures by artist". Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The alternative is needlessly wordy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it is best to keep all works by William Hogarth in one Category. I find it pointless to sub-categorize any further. These entities (books, printmaking activities, paintings) are all related. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (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:United States Navy aircraft squadrons[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 as empty. The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In accordance with WP:MILMOS#CATNAME, this category should be at Category:Aircraft squadrons of the United States Navy. The replacement category already exists; I recommend a deletion of this category with all entries being moved to the other one. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm clearing it out, and it can be deleted once it is empty. Let me replace it first, and it can easily be deleted once it is done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is no need to empty it out of process, this can be speedily merged through the normal process. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 14 June 2012 (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:Malik deenar Islamic Academy[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: speedily deleted WP:CSD#G6. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Copy of Malik Deenar Islamic Academy in Category space. Clearly not a category, and no content will be lost if deleted. Monty845 20:15, 14 June 2012 (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:Fastest production cars[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Fastest" is subjective, especially how many should go in category. 10 fastest? 1000 fastest? Superlatives should go in articles (lists). Vossanova o< 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to add 'listify' as a list already exists. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is strange to speak of subjectivity in a field with standards bodies and verification rules. Fastest is for the fastest production model for any given year, not the two fastest or any other number. Otherwise, a lot of Category:World records needs to be reconsidered; not only does this category have companions like Category:Land speed record venues and Category:Water speed records but analogues like Category:Weather extremes of Earth.- choster (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we wouldn't have to ask "WP:WAX", because world records are not subjective. Production car speeds are - most are claimed by the manufacturer, not by some standardised body. Whose definitions do we use? The manufacturer's? Motor Trend's? As there is no official standing for 'fastest production car per year', this is something non-defining, and thus something for a list, not a category. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would editors who have an interest in this category please note that the creator of this category User:DeFacto has been banned from Wikipedia, so obviously he cannot put his case. I picked up on this proposal because I monitor his user page. Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List covers everything the category does. Could also be renamed to Guinness Book World Record Holders for Fastest Automobile. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is clearly for production cars which held the record at the time for 'fastest production car'. Eg Jaguar XJ220 - "It held the record for the highest top speed of a production car". This is an obvious defining characteristic. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except there's nobody who determines what the record is. It's a combination of manufacturer's claims ("we're the fastest!") and WP:OR ("This car appears to have been fastest that year"). - The Bushranger One ping only 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is more appropriate since it can include information about how this was actually determined. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename for clarity, to Production cars holding world speed records . DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much better dealt with by the list, in this case, for the reasons set out above. These cars have not held world speed records, so such a rename would probably not work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussions. While a rename to Category:Production cars holding world speed records might look appealing this is probably better documented in a list showing the history of those records. Also a rename will likely require a major cleanup of the contents. A category is not the best solution to display the timeline of events and that screams for a list as the best navigation solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list exists, and it is a much better way to track this sort of thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2012 (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:Native American documentary films[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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and could be interpreted as "documentary films made by Native Americans". The proposed name is more consistent with others in Category:Documentary films about race and ethnicity and consistent with recent discussions here (African American) and here (Jewish documentary films). Even so, that may not be enough for speedy renaming; discuss. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename C2C- The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename No worries here. Rename removes significant ambiguity! Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not speedily. The proposed new name does clarify the category's purpose, but per WP:CFDS#C2C "this criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention". The precedents cited are a little new to establish a naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 15 June 2012 (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.

Formula One teams[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 renaming Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams to Category:Formula One drivers by team, Category:Virgin Formula One drivers to Category:Virgin Racing Formula One drivers, and Category:Lotus Formula One drivers to Category:Team Lotus Formula One drivers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:AFM Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:AGS Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Alfa Romeo Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Alta Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Amon Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Arrows Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:ATS Wheels Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Automobili Turismo e Sport Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:BAR Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Benetton Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Brawn Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Caterham Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Force India Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Forti Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Honda Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:HRT Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Jaguar Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Jordan Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Ligier Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Lotus F1 Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Lotus Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Marussia Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:MasterCard Lola Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Mercedes-Benz Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:McLaren Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Midland Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Minardi Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Pacific Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Prost Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Red Bull Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Renault Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Rial Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Sauber Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Simtek Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Spirit Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Spyker Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Stewart Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Super Aguri Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Team Lotus (2010–11) Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Toro Rosso Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Toyota Formula One drivers
Propose renaming Category:Virgin Formula One drivers to Category:Virgin Racing Formula One drivers
Propose deleting Category:Williams Formula One drivers
Propose renaming Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams to Category:Formula One drivers by constructor OR Category:Formula One drivers by team
Propose renaming Category:Lotus Formula One drivers to Category:Team Lotus Formula One drivers


Nominator's rationale: Delete all. While in 'stick and ball' sports, affiliation by team is very defining, in auto racing it is rather less so. The driver competes (pit stops aside) on his own against the others, and driver affiliations change much more often than in 'traditional' sports; in addition, drivers are more often known by their sponsor, rather than their team, per se, and while this is less so in F1 than in other forms of motorsport, I don't believe that - with the exception of Scuderia Ferrari, the grandest team of all that every driver aspires to drive for - F1 team affiliation rises to the level of defining that categorisation requires (at least one team categorised here never even qualified for an event). There has also been past consensus that motorsports teams are insufficently defining for categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Formula One is nothing at all like NASCAR, so there is no effective precedent for deleting these categories. F1 drivers are never known by their sponsors, I repeat, never. They tend to be associated with their teams more than anything else, largely because there is nothing else for them to be associated with, except possibly their nationalities. Given the huge year-on-year performance disparities between teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull on the one hand, and Minardi, HRT and Marussia on the other, the teams that drivers compete for is the most defining aspect of their careers. A McLaren driver will be expected to have a top-flight career and multiple wins, whereas an HRT driver can be expected never to have even scored a point. There is nothing more defining for an F1 driver than the team for which he drives. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough points. At the very least though Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams should be renamed to Category:Formula One drivers by constructor if kept, as I'm pretty sure 'constructor' is the sole term used. (And some of the others should likely be merged, but that's a whole 'nother discussion if kept.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently a bit of a discussion over the whole "teams vs. constructors" argument, but yes, I'd agree with you that "constructor team" is a poor term to use and it should be renamed. Regarding merging, the FIA view all those as separate constructors with separate statistics etc, so merging might be problematic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think WP:COMMONSENSE would apply though to, say, have former Virgin drivers (and "Virgin Formula One drivers" is one heck of an awkward name!) in the Marussia category, since it's a renamed team? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, they are separate constructors. The FIA never read WP:COMMONSENSE. Lucas di Grassi never drove for Marussia according to any reliable source, for example, and Charles Pic never even sat in a Virgin (as it were). Good job they changed that name though ;) Some other teams' histories (e.g. Renault and Lotus) are insanely complicated and merging the categories would initiate an argument at WP:F1 which would comfortably fill the rest of cyberspace. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. Consider all but the last withdrawn then, and that converted to a rename... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Bretonbanquet.--Kingjamie (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Bretonbanquet said, drivers are known by the teams they competed for, and having a category for each constructor's drivers is perfectly reasonable and useful. QueenCake (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Access to drivers who have competed for a team is a useful research function appropriate to an encyclopedia, and available in others. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current (admittedly somewhat awkward) category name "Formula One drivers by constructor team" reflects the intention that the subcategories should only contain drivers who drove for the works team for each constructor, e.g. Category:McLaren Formula One drivers only contains drivers who drove for the works McLaren team. Renaming the category to "Formula One drivers by constructor" might suggest that the subcategories contain all drivers who drove cars manufactured by that constructor, regardless of the team for which they drove. Which we might decide is appropriate, in which case, no problem. An alternative approach would be to rename the parent cat "Formula One drivers by team", which would also allow the creation of subcategories for major teams which didn't build their own cars, e.g. Rob Walker Racing Team. Which may or may not be desirable. DH85868993 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that F1 always required teams to construct their own cars? (I know they do now, and the customer-cars proposal they've been floating is now D.O.A.). I'd presume that by team is the intent here (and that, therefore, Category:Rob Walker Racing Team Formula One drivers would be valid), but that in F1 team = constructor, in terminology at least. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, F1 teams are required to construct their own cars (well, more precisely, to own the IP of their cars - noting that Dallara actually designed and built the Hispania F110). But that wasn't always the case - as recently as the 1970s, teams could purchase a car from another constructor. So we need to decide what we want these categories to be, and that will influence the name of the parent category. If we decide we want them to be solely team-based, then some of the existing subcategory names may need to change, e.g. Category:Lotus Formula One drivers might need to change to "Team Lotus Formula One drivers" for consistency with the article name (Team Lotus). DH85868993 (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above discussion, he should not be added into Category:McLaren Formula One drivers, since that is only for drivers who drove for the works McLaren team. But your question raises an interesting point: do we need to set a threshold for how notable a team is before creating a category for its drivers: I guess a simple rule of thumb would be that if a team is sufficiently notable to have its own article (as BS Fabrications is), then it's sufficiently notable to have a category for its drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For F1, that does make sense to me (after all, if MasterCard Lola qualifies... ;) ) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested "Team Lotus Formula One drivers", for consistency with the article name (Team Lotus), in the same way that the other two Lotus driver categories are consistent with their respective article names. DH85868993 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another point to note is now that drivers are being categorised by team rather than constructor, the categories for those teams who started off using other constructors' cars, but later built their own, will contain drivers who drove for the team but didn't drive cars constructed by the team, e.g. Category:Tyrrell Formula One drivers would contain Jean-Pierre Beltoise and Johnny Servoz-Gavin, who drove for Tyrrell Racing but didn't drive "Tyrrell" cars. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Today I'm mainly filling in the Brabham F1 drivers and have seen several driver who raced for thier own team I will create these categories, e.g. Bob Anderson (racing driver) drove for DW Racing Enterprises.
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:Asians in film and theatre[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The stated scope of the category "Articles on mainstream movies and theatre with Asian characters or cast, primarily those created outside of Asia, or popular outside of Asia" is too vague. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, as this category seems to be Amerocentric. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, As a subcategory of "Film by culture" the subject makes sense. If this category were to be deleted than should all "Film by culture" categories and the category itself; additionally I can see this as a subcategory of "Category:Asian people by occupation".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been through every sub-cat and page in this category to make sure they are appropriately categorised. The pages of this category are just an unrepresentative smattering of films, plays and people with an Asian connection; most but not all have something to do with America as well. It's really neither needed nor helpful. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not be helpful to the nominator, however it is a subcategory of "Film by culture" and "Asian culture" is just as worthy of a category as other subcategories of that category.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is way too vague. For example, for a given value of Asian we could put Lois and Clark (well, OK maybe TV shows are beyound the scope, but I am not sure) in this category because for a given value of Aisa Dean Cain counts as Asian cast (this is ignoring the episode Chi of Steel which opens another argument). Asian is used too differently in the US and Britain to be a useful trans-national category (in the US most people mean Chinese/Filipino/Vietnamese and rarely Indians, in Britian they mean first and foremost Indians and Pakistanis.) Even if we limit it to films and plays where a character or cast member was born in Asia, we still end up throwing in South Pacific (one of the major characters was born in Vietnam) and all sorts of other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still trying to figure out how Up (2009) film fits in this category at all. The way it is worded you can qualify with a character who is said to be Asian but is not or you can qualify with a cast member who is Asian but is not cast as such (thus my Lois and Clark comment, although I guess Dean Cain is not Asian by some definitions, yes no one disputes his Japanese ancestry, but most of his ancestors were not Japanese, and it is not clear if "Asian" is a racial, ethnic or requiring actual birth on the continent.) By the way, does a film with its main characters being immigrants from Israel count? At that rate, do any films starting Jeruslaem-born Natalie Portman qualify for this category? So does that mean I can put Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones in this category since it had an Aisan (Portman) cast member? It qualifies according to the definition, which means the definition is highly problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that we are merging Thailand, China and Japan and acting as if they are one coherent cultural unit is questionable at best. The notion of "Asian culture" is largely fictious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all of the above - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 4 July 2012 (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:Jewish film and theatre[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: withdrawn and relisted as a fresh proposal at CFD June 17. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Jewish culture. There are hardly any other categories combining film and theatre. This one dates all the way back to 2004. It serves as a head category for actors alongside film and theatre, but IMHO it would be appropriate for actors to be a sub-cat of relevant categories for film/cinema and theatre, so this is not needed. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised nomination: Restructure the three sub-cats, putting Category:Jewish film as a direct sub-cat of Category:Jewish media with a "see also" link to Category:Jewish theatre; adding another "see also" link in the reverse direction; and making Category:Jewish actors a sub-category of both Film and Theatre. The nominated category is no longer needed since the contents were split between Film and Theatre in 2009, so it should be deleted. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sure, the subject is within the larger topic of Jewish culture, but it stands on its own. Whether it is the canard that Jews control all of Hollywood (it actually is no higher than 85%) or the many books and scholarly articles written on the subject, this category provides an overarching structure for the topic, serves effectively as an aid to navigation and should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The cat serves as the mother of many other related cats and does no harm whatsover. I don't see how WP is better without it. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOHARM? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: In reply to Yoavd (and Shuki below): as well as being a long route to navigate between its member categories (as I have described below), here's the other harm that the category does: it keeps Category:Jewish film from being categorised as a direct sub-cat of Category:Jewish media, in the way that every other corresponding film/media pair are related. It should prevent Category:Jewish theatre being categorised directly in Category:Jewish culture too, but in fact that link is already there at the moment, in brazen contravention of WP:SUBCAT. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fayanetic, you go too far by using such hot terms as "brazen contravention of WP:SUBCAT" when the process of building up WP categories is often like putting together a jig-saw that requires patience and usually based on logic and real life and not on the forced application of WP rules which can and should be challenged, and that is why there are these discussions allowing for divergent POVs to be expressed, and that is not "brazen", it is rather admirable and necessary. IZAK (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, and I apologise for using that word; I was going to come back and remove it. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe any of those giving opposing comments have addressed why film and theatre need to be lumped together in this case. They have instead given arguments as to why Jewish theatre and film are worthy topics. But this not what is that issue. Instead, could someone please indicate why film and theatre belong together in this instance, when they are not in any other? Or it is the case that all film and theatre cats should be grouped together? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kevlar: Your question is off the mark because what the nominator is doing is not trying to retain the uniqueness and specificity of the contents of both film and theatre, but rather, instead of proposing the most logical, fair and rational solution of an even 50-50 SPLIT straight down the line between equal theatre and film, that would require lots more work and cooperation with other editors who have worked on this over the last 8 years (that the nominator now wants to demolish in less than 8 days), the nominator is arbitrarily trying to justify his own version of an "upmerge" that in effect creates an even broader category relating to "culture" that would encompass not just film and theatre but could, and should, then also include anything to do with culture, with even vaguer "categorization" see Category:Jewish culture that has 33 sub-categories! So why pick on this one when it has served such a good function. As for why the subject of theatre and film go together, the answer should be obvious, they are both about acting with film acting picking up from theatre acting, and within small social, ethnic and religious group the subject theatre/film is a combination. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That 50:50 split into Category:Jewish film and Category:Jewish culture was already done, beautifully, starting in 2009. Since whatever date that was finished, the original 2004 category is no longer needed. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Fayenatic: The fact that there are the two categories (of Category:Jewish film and Category:Jewish theatre) (not Category:Jewish culture which is a parent to the previous two) is in fact yet another reason for the combination of these two categories into a legitimate parent category of their own. Please review the tepid and POV-style wording of your original nomination that did not mention anything you are saying now. You should have presented a fuller argument and outline of all the categories, sub-categories and sub-sub-categories that would have been directly affected by your proposed nomination to delete. IZAK (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right. I used "upmerge" in the original nomination rather than "just delete" to indicate that I did not want to destroy the links between the sub-categories. I have now revised the nomination to a more specific re-structuring (which is what I actually meant to do all along). I do think these changes would be an improvement. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey folks, just take a look at the category. It contains no pages directly, just three sub-categories: Category:Jewish film, Category:Jewish theatre and Category:Jewish actors, all of which are being kept. I just don't see the need for this extra intermediate category. As I stated originally, Actors can become a sub-cat of both Film and Theatre. We can even add "see also" links between Film and Theatre. That way, there will still be one-step navigation between each of those three categories, which I suggest is BETTER than the two-step navigation which you need at the moment (up to the nominated category and then down to an other sub-cat). There is no more need for any work & co-operation (as suggested above by the category creator IZAK). – Fayenatic London 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the same reasons as Shuki --Yoavd (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: But why do you prefer to navigate between these film & theatre categories using one click up the hierarchy followed by a second click down, rather than a single "see also" click? That would be better for navigation between them. There is no lead article for Jewish acting. It is more common to categorise "Film & television" together, as television is also a medium that has actors, but Category:Jewish television has been left out of this category. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fayanetic, "Jewish acting" does not really exist in real life. There are Jews who act, and there is acting by and about Jews, Jewish themes (sometimes by non-Jews) and about Judaism sometimes (also by often done by non-Jews), but there is no such animal as "Jewish acting" as such. IZAK (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. I made the comment about Jewish acting in response to your posting addressed to Kevlar above, where you said it "should be obvious" that theatre and film go together because they are both about acting. That does not persuade me that three categories which are about acting with a Jewish connection should have this intermediate-level category of their own, especially as it excludes television acting. A Category:Jewish performing arts might be more justifiable, grouping theatre, dance and music (not that I am seeking to set that up either). – Fayenatic London 12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 16 June 2012 (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:Film by culture[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although the top category is Category:Film, sister categories include Category:Cinema by region and Category:Cinema by country. The new name will avoid confusion in the sub-categories where editors currently categorise articles on individual films in "Fooian film" rather than "Fooian films". – Fayenatic London 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 16 June 2012 (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:Chinese American museums 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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese-American museums – Fayenatic London 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, no other countries have Chinese-American museums. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 14 June 2012 (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.

Empty language categories[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These empty categories had deletion tags placed on them in May, but were never listed on CfD. The cid category would be made empty by the deletion of the empty cid-N category, so it should be deleted as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (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.

Places with Jewish communities[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: Listify and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listify, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 19#United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities. These are mostly lists of cities which happen to include a Jewish community. They include 2 articles focussed on Jews but those have more specific categories already. – Fayenatic London 06:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as grouping such places by a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nominator and per precedent as arbitrary and/or subjective. As noted in the discussion of United States, what constitutes a community? One person? Ten? One Hundred? One percent? Ten percent? This is way too ambiguous to categorize. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per BrownHairedGirl. As I see it, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Next year someone will come along and reverse it. IZAK (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An Orthodox Jewish community in a geographic locale is an important or at least noteworthy attribute of that locale. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. While this may be notable on a geographic basis, we need sources to support that. Lists are the correct solution in that case and not categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- There has to be a certain number of Jewish men to enable a synagogue to be established. Accordingly, this category is probably going to become a list of places with a synagogue, usually a NN one that will not be mentioned in the article. This is much too like a performance by performer category for my liking. WE could legitimately have a category with articles on Jewish communities, but not one dealing with places with Jewish communities, whehter or not Orthodox. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify We do not categorize places by a minor group in them. This could lead to a large city being put in tens of categories if it has distinct ethnic enclaves, especially since once a category applies it always applies, thus we should so categorize places that had their Orthodox Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2012 (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:Populated places by ethnicity[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I just, just created this and then saw that there is already a Category:Communities by ethnic group and Category:Communities by nationality. Merge the three!. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2012 (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/2012_June_14&oldid=1082345852"