The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per what appears to be the standard naming convention seen in Category:Films about amnesia, Category:Films about prostitution, Category:Films about suicide, etc. Sven ManguardWha? 21:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons stated below in gambling films. Goes against standard conventions of "Crime films", "Sports films", etc. Also it creates a problem that does not exist. Most films are not "about" something like time travel or gambling. They include these elements but "about" is an unhelpful word. "Time travel in film" or "gambling in film" makes more sense, either that or leave these categories like the other "Sports films"-type categories. 2005 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 2005 & Jerry Pepsi. Non-fiction forms such as documentary films are clearly "about" something, but fiction is an art form, where the setting is routinely used as background or metaphor. (For example High Noon is not set in the Wild West, but it is about McCarthyism and the loneliness of making a stand. I am not sure whether I prefer "Foo films" of "Foo in film"; both have their merits, but have quite different scopes. So rather than discussing these categories individually, I suggest an RFC on how to categorise fictional themes and settings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Time travel in film" based on the current introduction of category, " films that include the theme of time travel", as opposed to "films about time travel". But I'm happy with other alternatives if the consensus is to shift the focus, so long as the introduction and included articles match the definition. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective; how much about time travel must the film be and what reliable sources say it's at least that much. Without reliable sources, categories are purely whatever anyone wants them to be. A sourced list is much better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are films that use time travel as a plot device, the rename suggests that they would be films that cover time travel as a subject. Often time travel just happens without being explained, it is a plot device, not a subject. They should also not be rename to time travel in film, since the articles are on the film, not the time travel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2013 (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 result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per what appears to be the standard naming convention seen in Category:Films about amnesia, Category:Films about prostitution, Category:Films about suicide, etc. Sven ManguardWha? 21:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Goes against standard naming conventions... Category:Sports films, Category:Fashion films, Category:Circus films, Category:Political films, etc etc. Additionally rename would be much less appropriate as most of the films merely include gambling as a theme and are not about gambling. For example, Ocean's Eleven. Saying that movie is "about" gambling would be an obtuse way to describe it to someone, but saying it is a gambling film is accurate. 2005 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The parent Category:Films by topic contains a mixture of "Foo films" and "Films about Foo". About 65% of the subcats use the "Film about" format, and about half that number use "Foo films (inclkusing some which don't belong in a "by-topic" category, such as Category:Postmodern films. It would be a good idea to standardise on one form or the other, but since there is no current standard, I think that needs a wider discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave in the time travel films debate above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are not documentaries on gambling. They are films where gambling occurs. It is also article about films, not articles about gambling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (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 result of the discussion was:delete (users have already renamed it). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make it clear, that it's a project category and not one the things on Flow. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as author. My mistake. Thanks Armbrust. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the few article across. Nothing else links there. It's safe to delete now. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2013 (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 result of the discussion was:delete. It seems uncontroversial to those who commented that we could have such categories if they contained articles about Turkish communities. But since these categories are categorizing places that simply have some significant percentage of Turkish inhabitants, those in favour of deletion have a strong argument. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we ought not be categorizing places by who may live there; no doubt, there are Turkish people in most of the cities of Germany, e.g., but there are also Chinese, French, Vietnamese, Russian, Polish, Dutch, Jewish, and (lots of) German people in them too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I broadly support the deletion rationales above, but with a reservation. The key issue for me is that most of the articles are not actually about Turkish communities; they about places in which there is such a community. If we had a slew of articles about the Turkish communities themseleves, then the category would be straightforwardly useful and non-controversial. However, in this case, the articles are mostly about places which have a Turkish community of unspecified size. In countries such as the USA and Germany, these are usually unstable immigrant populations; the demographic mix in each area usually changes radically over a few decades. New immigrants cluster, but as they prosper and integrate, they disperse. So we are categorising by a transient factor with no definable threshold, and that doesn't work. My reservation is in respect of the Turkish communities in countries bordering Turkey. In many cases, these are long-standing (maybe even centuries old), the historical residue of political boundaries which shift around established populations. These people are not immigrants; they are indigenous ethnic minorities, whose predominance in a particular area is a long-standing defining characteristic of their region. I don't know whether the category system can accommodate this issue, because while such groups may be concentrated in a particular area, they may not dominate it; and in devising inclusion criteria, we risk trying to choose where between 1% and 99% a threshold is set. That fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Maybe I have talked myself into deletion of all the categories, but I just want to put on record that these categs are not all the same. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We most certainly do classify places by the people who live there. As summarized here, the United States Census Bureau does so for places in the United States on a real-world basis, as do other census agencies worldwide. Demographic characteristics are stable over long periods and the presence of a well-defined minority group in a community is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Alansohn:. That United States Census Bureau page nicely illustrates the peril of this norm of categorisation. The map's hotspots to the immediate south of the Great Lakes all have Turkish populations of less than 1.5%. That includes Cloverdale, Indiana, with 1.2$ Turkish ancestry out of a 2003 population of 2,305. That's only 28 people. The map is an interesting exercise in locating Turkish communities, but it does nothing to support the proposition that these communities are WP:DEFINING of the places concerned. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse than that. No census has made it possible for people to easily mark themselves as Turkish on the census. We have much more reliable figures of Chinese, Japanese, Samoans and Chomorros than Turkish in the United States. My best guess is that if people did mark other and write in Turkish, they would be recounted as white, and if they asked "my parents immigrated from Turkey, what should I put as my race", they would be told to put white. The answerty questions were a much smaller sample, and under slightly different rules than the general race questions. At that, we did get rid of Category:Populated places in the United States with African-American majority populations, and that was way easier to define than this, since in 90%+ of cases we had a clear yes or no answer (Philadephia and St. Louis we didn't, because we had to figure is it 50% plus mark Black/African-American as a race, or 50% plus mark Black/African-American as their only race, and is this anyone who marked such, or only non-Hispanic black/African-American, the answers to those two questions do not change anything for Detroit or Highland Park, Michigan, but they matter in Philadephia and St. Louis.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily purge -- This should be about communities, not about towns that happen to have a few Turkish expatriates in them. Two of the articles in the Greece category may be legitimate, as would an article elsewhere describing the institutions of expatriate Turks. Essentiually there have eben no Turkish communities in Greece since about 1925 when there was an exchange of populations between the two countries. The Bulgarian and Macedonian categories might be legitimate, if the articles were about communities left behind in those countries by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkan Wars. The Bulgarian category has a headnote for a Turkish majority or a significant minority. If town articles say that the majority is ethnically Turkish, they belong, but not otherwise (unless there is a limit on the minority). For the US and German cases, we had a discussion some time ago about Black-majority US cities and deleted the categories. Accordingly, unless the articles are about Turks in a town, they should not be categorised: to do anything else would be to fall inot the same trap as allowing performance (having Turks) by performer (city( categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When Islandia, New York was the most Turkish community in the US in 2000 with 2.5% of the population being Turkish, it is clear that this is not a defining characteristic of the place. It was nearly 20% Hispanic in 2010, but is in no categories for its Hispanicness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2013 (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 result of the discussion was:Mannually merge per BFs suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "related" is not needed in the title of the category. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an administrative "hidden" category. I have no objection to the propsoal, but is it the best name? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manually merge into the category structur of Category:Archives of American Art task force articles. This is an administrative category intended to contain articles and other pages that fall under the scope of the Archives of American Art task force. As such, it should follow the same standard as all other project assessment categories—namely, pertinent pages should be categorized by the presence of a project banner on their talk pages and articles should not be added directly to the category. The appropriate code in this case would be: {{WikiProject Smithsonian Institution|class=|importance=|listas=|SIART=yes|SIART-importance=}}. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:23, 13 October 2013 (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.
