Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Category:Climate change skeptics[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 but fix. As closer I will only remove the template etc, and leave it to others to remedy the problems. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The cat claims List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as main and base of the definition, using however the interesting notion of Several of these individuals are included in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The definition and use of the category is insofar neither applicable, nor comprehensive nor along basic WP policy rules. WP:COP, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT are not being followed. The underlying article does exclude a large part of the people in the category (especially non-climate-scientists and politicians) and contradicts Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Consider_making_a_list by the use of the category itself. WP:Coatrack applies. Btw, it may not be deemed a WP:Navigational list, as it is not a mainspace feature. Serten (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we shouldn't categorize people based on one position they have - which of course calls into question the "Climate change activists" tree as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no activist cat, but one Category:Climate change environmentalists. It has neither a definition nor a defining article. Would you open an AfD for it? I am sort of lukewarm about it. Serten (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we should categorize people based on defining characteristics. It may very well be the case that climate change skepticsm is the one and only defining characteristic of a person. Same applies to activists for that matter. If needed, the definition of the category may be changed to deal with the several problems that are mentioned in the rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category should be used when climate change skepticism is a principal driver of the person's public work. I disagree with the opinion that categorisation by activism issue (as contained in Category:Activists by issue) is not relevant. We have several biographies of people whose primary reason for notability is as a climate skeptic. These categories just need to be used properly and not used on any biography where the subject once mentioned skepticism of climate science, instead of having a continued presence and activism in the climate skepticism movement. SFB 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep current category for the well written reasons provided by Marcocapelle and SFB just above. These people are activists and need and deserve to be categorized as such. They are not hiding their ideas; they publicize them. Hmains (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix problems (A) Without an explanation for a divergence there should be a 1:1 relationship between the category and the article/list that serves as the base. (B) They should both follow BLPCAT, which in part would limit entries to those otherwise qualified people for whom their position on the mainstream assessment has been sufficiently noted in secondary RSs (and not just blogs). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Primary notability as a climate skeptic suggests we should have this for organization. --Obsidi (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (Oppose deletion) but fix problems Thanks to Serten for discovering the problems stated in the proposal. While it is easier to delete than fix, please don't take the easy route. It sounds like this cat needs to be split into two or more new cats, probably three: scientists, politicians, and others who have stated they are skeptics. It would require peeking into each of the 86 articles in this category. If you must, you can contact me for help. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Prhartcom WP guidelines require statements of third parties that certain people are sceptics, right? Currently, the underlying article is deeply entrenched. A simple rule as "categorize all who are repeatedly being deemed an imprtant climate sceptic by reliable third party sources" is not applied and wioll not be applied. The article gatekeepers instead try to use an erratic OR based reasoning for inclusion and are not willing to allow for basic WP-Guidelines being used at the article. Nice stronghold of the faithful. The list does and will not not include the major and most important part of the people addressed with the cat. That is violating WP BLP and is as contentious as currently beyound any fix. Insofar I still opt for a delete. Serten (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of this category[edit]

Serten, NewsAndEventsGuy: I have been looking at all Wikipedia articles of the notable people currently in this category, and am one-third complete (more to come). Immediately below are those currently in this category whose public skepticism on the mainstream assessment of climate change appears to have been sufficiently noted in reliable secondary sources, sorted by their profession:

Claude Allègre (geochemist and politician), Timothy Ball (professor of geography), Robert Balling (professor of geography), Sallie Baliunas (astrophysicist), Robert M. Carter, (geologist and palaeontologist), John Christy (atmospheric scientist), Petr Chylek (atmospheric scientist and researcher), Chris de Freitas (professor of climatology), David Douglass (professor of physics), Don Easterbrook (professor of geology), Ivar Giaever (physicist and Nobel Prize winner), Fritz Vahrenholt (chemist and politician)

  • Scientists not appearing in the above list article:

Joe Bastardi (meteorologist), David Bellamy (botanist), Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (professor of geography)

  • Politicians (not appearing in the above list article):

Michele Bachmann (U.S. House of Representatives), Maxime Bernier (Canadian Minister of State), Marsha Blackburn (U.S. House of Representatives), Paul Broun (U.S. House of Representatives), Douglas Carswell (U.K. Member of Parliament), Nigel Farage (U.K. party leader)

  • Other public figures (not appearing in the above list article):

Joseph Bast (think tank founder), Glenn Beck (commentator), Christopher Booker (journalist and news magazine founder), John Coleman (weathercaster and Weather Channel founder), Piers Corbyn (weathercaster and WeatherAction founder), Ann Coulter (commentator [note: secondary sources on her skepticism of climate change exist and need to be added to her article]), James Delingpole (journalist), Myron Ebell (think tank director), David Evans (mathematician, engineer, think tank member), Ray Evans (think tank founder)

Immediately below are those currently in this category who do not have reliable secondary sources noting their skepticism:

  • (None so far)

I believe the following is starting to emerge: (1) Consensus is favoring opposition to this proposed category deletion. (2) The notable people in this category have reliable, secondary sources stating their climate change skepticism, even if not all are scientists appearing in the above list article. (3) If any are found to not have these reliable sources, they should be removed from the category. (4) The above list article may have been somehow linked to this category at one point, but today that article is increasingly irrelevant to the contents of this category. (5) If reliable sources for inclusion are being followed, there is no issue with WP:COP, WP:LISTPEOPLE or WP:BLPCAT.

Note: Recently, Category:Climate change denial was merged into Category:Climate change skepticism, which was a fine idea. Category:Climate change skepticism does not contain any people. This category under discussion, Category:Climate change skeptics, contains only people and is a subcategory of Category:Climate change skepticism, which is good structure.

Thoughts: (1) Perhaps the scientists in this category not appearing in the above list article should be added to that article. (2) Perhaps this category should become three categories: Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists), Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians), Category:Climate change skeptics (other public figures), each a subcategory of Category:Climate change skepticism. Please provide your thoughts below. Prhartcom (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This will tend to be overcategorization and an attack category. The fact that someone is a climate change skeptic may not at all relate to their notability, and in those cases this will essentially be categorizaing by opninion, which we do not do. The more I think about this category, the more it seems to categorize by opinion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're not thinking about it enough, and you're not actually looking at the articles of those who are currently in this category. Are articles written according to our opinion? No, and neither is categorization. Do we avoid writing articles because they could be written as attack pages? No, we revert those attempts. Of course the only people currently are, and will be, in this category are people who are on record according to reliable sources as someone who is a climate change skeptic. Of course if anyone ever tries to use this category as an attack their edit will be reverted. Don't prevent something very useful because something theoretically could happen. Prhartcom (talk) 13:43, 5 December 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:Towns in Brazil[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 (category was empty upon close, but it seems there is agreement that this should not exist). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brazil has no such official subdivision. Each Brazilian state (estado) is divided in municipalities (municípios), and each municipality may have zones (zonas), sub-prefectures (subprefeituras), districts (distitos) and neighborhoods (bairros). We simply have no towns here and after I performed some fixes and proposed some deletions, I realized this category will remain unpopulated forever since we already have Category:Municipalities of Brazil and Category:Populated places in Brazil.
By the way, I never understood the difference between the two cats above. I'd be glad if anyone could clarify why we categorize Brazilian municipalities with "Populated places in STATE" instead of "Municipalities of STATE", since the official Brazilian definition of a city/town/village is "municipality"). I know there has been a discussion in 2010, but, for example, Category:Municipalities in New York is a sub-cat of Category:Populated places in New York, why can't it be the same for Brazilian municipalities? We currently have one category called Category:Municipalities in Minas Gerais (with no similar cats for the other states), is it a valid category? Victão Lopes Fala! 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. City sound quite "generic" to me, but it'll work. And yes, I did nominate the contents (as I mentioned in my rationale), but there were more articles and sub-categories, I just re-categorized them. The three remaining pages refer to two locations whose actual existence I question and one place that seems to be actually a private farm (subject to our GNG, therefore), not a geographical location. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:06, 21 October 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:Deaths by military[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:People killed by armed forces. For the record, the contents at the time of closure are Category:People killed by Nazi Germany, Category:People killed by the Taliban and Category:People killed by the Turkish Armed Forces. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More grammatical title and better fit to the subcategories. Possible alternative: "People killed by a military force". DexDor (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed, as this fits the current contents, except for "People killed by Nazi Germany", which is a country not a military force (a convict given the death penalty would meet that criteria, for example). That category should be removed. Given the exclusion of that category, this is clearly a very thin tree, but arguably a viable one. SFB 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This is better than the current category and matches the subcategories. But I think this category is still too vague and maybe something like Category:Civilians deliberately killed by military forces might be closer to what is being categorized here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rename/rescope should also apply to the subcategories so that should be a separate discussion. DexDor 06:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Making the less flawed name consistent is still progress so I support this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's categorized here is a hodge-podge. Not all people killed by Nazi Germany were killed by the German military, for example. And only one person has been killed by the US military??? Really, I kind of thought that a few hundred thousand Confederate forces - some of whom must be notable - not to mention various Native American chiefs, Taliban folks, Al Qaeda folks, the Lincoln assassins (who were executed by the US army), etc. I have no confidence that this category with its deliberate mixing of underinclusive and overinclusive daughter cats is more than a synthesis and subjective category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have the subcats (e.g. for IDF) then we should keep this category. If for no other reason than it makes it easier to target the subcats for CFD. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_21#Category:People_killed_by_the_United_States_Armed_Forces. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I grant that that's a plausible reason to stay execution, but it's just a stay. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the parent cat and other subcats in fairness to Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces, which for some reason that I can't imagine was nice and full even though the IDF since its creation has killed far less, even in proportion to its size, than dozens of other militarys in the same time span. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IDF category seems POV to me and it likely suffers the same problems highlighted above and probably should be deleted, you can nominate it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It may be necessary to purge out elements of the Nazi Germany member, which probably includes holocaust victims (who were not killed by soldiers). Better still Category:People killed by armed forces, which will include the navies and air forces for countries where only soldiers are part of the military. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- - change to - people killed by armed forces satusuro 01:01, 11 November 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:Small Wikipedia template 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AFAIK there's no rule saying that a template category containing only a small (how small?) number of templates is a problem that needs to be fixed. Per the exception in WP:SMALLCAT most of these categories are fine. DexDor (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Template talk:Template category#Remove auto-categorization for my rationale for creating this category. Your thoughts there about the purpose and usefulness of Category:Wikipedia template categories would be appreciated. Should that cat be deleted as well? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no clear use of the above category. I would also support deletion of the parent category on the grounds that gathering categories related to templates in one place on the grounds that they are categories doesn't seem to serve any administrative function and it a needless split of Category:Wikipedia templates. SFB 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and per the exception in WP:SMALLCAT. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:49, 26 October 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:Royalties[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. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created by a new single purpose editor promoting their royalty investment company. The only content is the investment company. Editor seems to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of categories. I can't envisage much scope for additional content. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speedy if possible (Can we create a new CSD class for categories created by people who clearly have no clue about how Wikipedia categories work?). For info: When created this category was placed under categories for: Music, Film, Art, Mineral, Geothermal Energy, Renewable Energy, Soar Energy, Patents, Trademark, Book Publishing. A number of categories by the same editor have also been CSD tagged. DexDor (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better dealt with as part of the tree of that covers the provenance of royalties (Category:Intellectual property law). SFB 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category contains one article and an empty sub-category. Whatever the hypothetical usage that might be useful, the category currently is not categorizing anything. No objection to recreating later. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The one article may possibly need further categories but most of the parents are examples of where the company in the article might like to trade, not what it is concerned with. In other words this category is mis-formed and it would be better to start from scratch. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 26 October 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:Computer-animated sequel 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: delete and upmerge contents to Category:Computer-animated films and Category:Sequel films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a questionable sub-category to me; does it matter that the films are sequels in this context? DonIago (talk) 16:16, 20 October 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:Athletics (track and field) national champions[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) 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Firstly, "National" should come first, like Category:National association football champions. Secondly, none of the athletics parents include "track and field". – Fayenatic London 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as more natural phrasing (and support related German sub-category rename proposal as well). SFB 22:22, 20 October 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:Fellows of Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar and consistency with other subcats of Category:Fellows of learned societies. Lagrange613 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having looked at a sample of articles in this category most make no mention of this society so it can hardly be a defining characteristic of such peple. Even on articles where it is mentioned (example) it appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (and adds to category clutter). It may be appropriate to create a list of presidents (or fellows) of the society - but it would be better for such a list to be created directly from a RS. If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This would militate for deleting most of the subcats of Category:Fellows of learned societies, which I don't think is appropriate. Given that we use fellow status in groups like SIAM to prove notability for academics this seems a reasonable category to keep. SIAM is old, but the Fellow designation is new, which perhaps is why you don't see it mentioned in every article. Lagrange613 01:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that this is defining; if inclusion is automatic upon application it's trivial; if otherwise, it's a non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of the highest awards given by the organization. Fellows tend to include it prominently on biographies and CVs, because it represents an acknowledgment by their peers of outstanding contributions over the course of a research career. That's why consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia is that it's a criterion for notability. Your argument doesn't seem to distinguish between this and other awards given by organizations. Care to explain why you think this category should be deleted and other, similar subcats of Category:Fellows of learned societies shouldn't be? Lagrange613 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as nominated. Being elected as a fellow of a major academic society is typically one of that society's highest honors, and is defining as a category in that, for instance, it is standard to mention such fellowships when introducing a speaker. But the grammar of the existing category name obviously needs fixing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename David and Lagrange say it all, significant honor used to determine notability of academics. --Randykitty (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. It is an understandable mistake to say that the category is "not defining". It is actually a significant factor in determining whether or not the subjects of such pages are notable per WP:ACADEMIC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be making the assumption that (a characteristic) being WP:NON-DEFINING and being relevant to WP:ACADEMIC are mutually exclusive. I suggest you read the paragraph of NONDEF beginning "Often, users can become confused...". DexDor (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but judging from your continued argument here you appear to have overlooked my description of why it's defining, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia procedure. It's because when academics write one-paragraph bios about each other (or as I said above when they do the same thing in spoken rather than written language) they usually include this specific piece of information. A few random examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. As for your not-so-veiled accusation that Tryptofish is confused: please be WP:CIVIL, —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not very important to me, but I just figured I'd look back. I guess the main thing that confuses me is why some editors think that keeping categories as tidy as possible is more important than an understanding of the actual content of pages. (I suspect NONDEF is only edited by editors who only care about categories and not about articles. We have all those categories about the years when people were born, and they've never struck me as particularly defining of a life's accomplishments, so the whole issue strikes me as rather silly.) Anyway, for editors who actually pay attention to the subject area, being a Fellow of this Society is a more important defining characteristic than having been born in a particular year, and, in fact, is a reasonably important characteristic. It strikes me as something that would be mentioned often in secondary sources about persons, and as something that could reasonably be put in the lead section (even if it hasn't been yet on the pages DexDor looked at), so it actually seems to satisfy the definitions of "defining" given at the linked page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- The main article says: "In 2009 SIAM instituted a Fellows program to recognize certain members who have made outstanding contributions to the fields SIAM serves". This suggests that the award has not been lavishly made and is a recognition of the subject's eminence in his field. I note that quite a number of the Presidents of SIAM have blue links to articles. We discourage categories for minor awards as creating clutter, but I think we might regard this as within the exception to . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 26 October 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:Interracial romance 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; there's also consensus to prune the contents of the category to those for which the interracial nature of the romance is significant. The pruning won't be carried out as part of this close, but any user can work on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It makes sense to have this category for films like West Side Story and Pocahontas, but the current title is a little too broad including films like Rugrats and Napoleon Dynamite, which do have interracial romances in them, but the fact that they're interracial is never even mentioned. JDDJS (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Any category under a "Films about ..." category should also be a "Films about ..." category. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the problems of all "films about" categories: how much "about" the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much. A lot of this is projection (no pun intended), as no doubt reading sufficient comments about American television's first interracial kiss on Star Trek, one could assert that Star Trek was "about" interracial kissing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename The category contents should be refined to those where interracial romance is a central theme addressed by the work (explanatory header would be useful here). Organising such works by their shared theme is something readers and scholars would expect and the theme of interracial romance in particular has a long and storied history within the arts. SFB 21:19, 22 October 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_October_20&oldid=1074813951"