Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Category:Belgian Promotion[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The old name Belgian 'Promotion' was a sloppy translation from the Dutch for 'bevordering', while the level is more commonly known as vierde klasse, which translates to fourth division. All the articles have already been renamed from Belgian Promotion to Belgian Fourth Division, only the category is still unchanged... Pelotastalk|contribs 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The new name is clearer and more specific. No English common name exists so this is a good solution. SFB 18:22, 19 August 2014 (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:English deities (and its two childcategories)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The rename is in line with the parent category Category: Anglo-Saxon paganism and in line with List of Anglo-Saxon deities. But it should be noted that this nomination is in contrast to a CfD decision from 2009, in which Anglo-Saxon gods was merged into English gods. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are English deities different from Anglo-Saxon deities? Editor2020 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • English did not exist yet during the time that people believed in these deities. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Editor2020 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Rename to "Angle and Saxon deities" because the Angles and Saxons weren't united for the periods in which these deities were believed in, either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is that really so? Can't really find this back in Anglo-Saxons. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You didn't really try and find out, methinks. See Angles#Anglian_kingdoms_in_England. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I had read this too, but the text of Angles#Anglian_kingdoms_in_England is much shorter and not any more informative than the text of Anglo-Saxons. If I understand the latter correctly, the merger of Angles and Saxons must have taken place long time before the oldest reliable source (731) mentions them to have migrated to current England. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show a reliable sources for the propositions that: (a) they shared the same gods, and (B) those gods only were worshiped after they were unified as "Anglo-Saxons". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a reasonable amount of consensus on the whereabouts of Anglo-Saxons but not (so much) about separate Angles and Saxons. So then we rather need reliable sources about the separate Angles and Saxons, that also need to be included in the respective WP articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (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-related 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've been working a fair bit in this topic area and I believe the documentary film category should diverge a bit from one of the parents, Category:LGBT-related films by genre, so as to follow the standard documentary construction, "Documentary films about foo," which some of its subcategories already use. I also think the limitation of the current category name became more evident in my recently created subcat Category:LGBT-related documentary films about religion‎, where I think the "LGBT" part of it should really be next to "religion," as in Category:LGBT topics and religion, and not at the beginning of the name, relegated to a "-related" status. And the proposed name might only be the top-level category, I've no objection to creating a biographical LGBT documentary subcat of some kind, if needed. I hope I've been clear. If this nom is successful, I'd rename the religion subcats speedily and accordingly, after. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "about" category purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename Dividing media by topic is a common and useful categorisation tool. (Please nominate Category:Works by topic for deletion if you feel "about" categorises are unworkable). This change encourages better and more specific categorisation as LGBT should be the central topic of the film, not just a element as "-related" precludes. The same applies for similarly named categories and I will support those as separate nominations. Note some content trimming may be needed if it only is slightly related to the topic, and not specifically about the topic. SFB 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm sorry, but while I've grown accustomed to delete votes from Carlossuarez46, this one is just absurd. The reason I prefer to work on documentary films almost exclusively these days is that they are generally, quite literally, about a topic. There's nothing subjective about it. And a rename might help us to prune any instances where that is not the case, where it is only more vaguely related to LGBT issues or people (though I can't think of any offhand). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any specific examples offhand either, though I can imagine the kind of scenario where "vaguely related to LGBT but not in a defining way" might come up: frex, a documentary film whose core subject is the environment, but which somebody wants to add to this category because its narrator, or a prominent environmentalist involved in the production, is an openly LGBT person. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or even trickier and perhaps more likely, a biodoc about about a person where they are LGBT, but that is not central to the film. But that's a very different animal about an LGBT topic. In fact, I should probably back off a hypothetical I raised in the nomination, and say that I for one have no intention of creating a 'Biographical documentary about LGBT persons," and that not what this nom is about, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom (I've never been terribly crazy about the "LGBT-related" wording.) Would definitely object to total deletion, as being a documentary film about LGBT topics is a legitimately defining characteristic of its films and not a "purely subjective" question as Carlossuarez claims (that is sometimes true of some "films about X" groupings, absolutely, but it's not true here) — and the proposed wording actually avoids the possibility of any such subjectivity entering into it better than the current wording does. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename as nom (Shawn in Montreal) decides but recommend consideration of Category:Documentary films with LGBT themes. I did a search on Category:film themes and only found Category:Films with atheism-related themes (re: WP:CRITERIA: Consistency). I still thought this type of wording set-up could work. Agree with Carlossuarez46 that it is purely subjective... and? The world is a blur but sensible choices can still be made. Gregkaye (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment I should also point out that while I am the chap behind Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_23#Category:LGBT_topics_and_religion, I believe that in this case we need the word "topics," particularly because of the concerns raised above about avoiding trivial associations. Anyway, just wanted to mention that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (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:East Ukraine[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also CfD Western Ukraine Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Unneeded categorization. NickSt (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) NickSt (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle. Also sounds like a politically motivated creation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am also dubious of the merits of splitting Ukraine into Eastern and Western. The possible distinction is that the West has Catholics, due to the area having once been Polish, while the East is purely Orthodox, having longer been part of the Russian Empire. However, if the presaent conflict does not break up Ukraine, I suspect that there will be a strong effort to integrate East and West. My reaction is therefore to leave alone and await the outcome of events. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the map in Eastern Ukraine, there is more than east and west, there is also south and center. The problem is that these four regions are neither historical regions, nor current administrative units. The article doesn't mention what this division of Ukrain in four regions is based on. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – We already have categories for the various oblasts. This category isn't serving any purpose that can't be served by existing categories. The "eastern/western/southern/central" designations are for geographical purposes only, and have no administrative or historical significance. I also agree with deletion for Category:Western Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGloucester. Besides, there is no such entity as East Ukraine, as there was with East Germany. It's merely a geographical connotation. § DDima 17:37, 3 September 2014 (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:KS Vllaznia Shkodër 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: administrative close: speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: no contest, probably will never be filled Koppapa (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It seems alreasy to have been deleted: speedy close. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (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:Active Jewish NFL Players[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being an active player is not a permanent characteristic of a person. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. But it's more than that. See the category description: this appears to have been created as some form of WP:POINT protest? Will issue a warning, to an editor who has just been unblocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shawn in Montreal: Actually, the note was added by a different editor. kennethaw88 • talk 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're quite right. Hidden in a diff that showed a removal of content. I'll remove the warning from the cat creator's page immediately and clean up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you. I've restored the category creator's description for the purposes of this (hopefully speedy) CfD and removed comments from Mercurywoodrose (which included a comment about how he's feeling -- apparently a category description can be just about anything, these days). on we go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable ethnicity/religion category and temp category to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose rename to Category:Jewish players of American football and bring in line with the Category:American players of American football by ethnic or national origin tree. This resolves the primary issues but maintains the nugget of relevance in this category. SFB 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess one way to approach the issue is, is there a defining association with Jewish Americans and football? There currently is just one equivalent subcategory to Category:Jewish American sportspeople, for baseball players. Jews and Baseball: An American Love Story and my own knowledge of the history here leads to me to believe that there is indeed a distinct and defining association between Jewish Americans and baseball -- I don't believe that's the case for gridiron football. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category for past and present Category:Jewish players of American football could potentially be appropriate, but there's a longstanding CFD consensus that we do not use the category system to separate "current/active X" from "former X". No objection to SFB's renaming suggestion if the consensus goes in that direction — but even if there isn't a consensus established for that, the existing category definitely still requires deletion. Bearcat (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Kept, Rename per SFB and Bearcat. However, I am dubious whether we need to split this by avery possible ex-European ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (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:People executed for refusing to convert to Christianity[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 as category page was not tagged. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, two people here whom are already rightfully classified in Category:People executed by the Portuguese Inquisition and Category:People executed by the Spanish Inquisition respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is potentially much bigger. How about all the Jews that were killed? All the pagans? All the people killed in the conquest of the Americas? Editor2020 03:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Not all killing is equivalent to executing, so that narrows the scope of this category. Besides there is the motive in the category name. The only case I know of in which refusal of non-Christians to convert to Christianity was the explicit motive for execution is the acts of Inquisition after the Alhambra Decree, of which the two people currently in the category are an example. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are specifying judicial execution only. Delete. Editor2020 16:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep since we're intent on keeping a slew of "executed people" categories, why they were executed seems to be their claim to notability. Would either of these people be notable but for their refusal to convert and subsequent execution? Methinks, not really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Inquisition also executed people for reasons that were not refusing to convert to Christianity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is actually a very interesting point. In as far as I know, refusing to convert to Christianity in itself has never been regarded as a criminal act in Christian law. The problem with these two people in this category is that they had previously been Christians, at least officially. So the category name should actually be changed into Category:People executed for refusing to return to Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not convinced that having zero members is in itself a valid reason to delete. Its clearly a valid category topic. Gregkaye (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise is it maybe possible to put the deletion discussion on hold for half a year, then evaluate if the category has been better populated or not? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just noticed that the category wasn't tagged for discussion. So a renomination at some stage might be the best thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for noticing, is clearly my mistake. I hope this discussion can be closed for administrative reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assigning reasons like this for executions is too often open to interpretation to pass the clear yes or no answer required of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2014 (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:People from Denmark, Maine[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. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 01:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added two more new articles on state legislators. I can write more if needed.--TM 01:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on new count. Although I would say that looking at the category before these articles were created, this town of 1,000 didn't necessarily have obvious potential for growth. kennethaw88 • talk 04:26, 28 August 2014 (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:People from Baldwin, Maine[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 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just three entries. ...William 01:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of an established category tree for all towns in Cumberland County, Maine. Nearly every town and city in Cumberland County has or had a 'people from...' category. A couple were deleted, but if the vast majority have it, I think it makes sense for all to have, not just 95%.--TM 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category now has 5 entries. Obvious potential for growth.--TM 13:22, 26 August 2014 (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/2014_August_18&oldid=1138399019"