Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 14

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

February 14[edit]

Category:National Film Award (Bangladesh) winners[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 to Category:Recipients of Bangladesh National Film Awards. Category:Recipients of Bangladesh National Film Awards was not tagged for discussion, so if anyone would like to propose that it be listified, it needs to be nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An orphaned category with only two entries. I just removed an errant speedy deletion attempt and tidied up a bit. Not sure if this is worth keeping or not, so I will go ahead and list. At the very least, it needs proper categorization itself. Safiel (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- are these awards of sufficient importance to fall into the exception in ? If not the outcome should be Listify and delete. I would certainly not object to us keeping Bollywood award categoruies, but is the Bangladesh film industry a major one? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete. Lists are a much better way to present information about who has won an award and if we have a list then a category that is dubious in its definingness is unnecessary. DexDor (talk)
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:Wikipedia portals[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. As discussed, anyone could now nominate Category:Portals to be renamed Category:Wikipedia portals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make clear that this category is for administration of portals, not for portals themselves (except those with a "needs maintenance" tag). DexDor (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support logical change due to parent "Wikipedia administration". SFB 21:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are there any portals not part of a wikiproject? - jc37 02:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would only describe a page as being "part of a wikiproject" if it's a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards (in Wikipedia namespace and for editors) so portal pages and wikiproject pages are different things.
If by "not part of a wikiproject" you mean pages that have no wikiproject tags (on their talk page) then there currently are some (e.g. this and this), but most portal pages (excluding subpages) have been tagged by one or more wikiprojects. DexDor (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Main Page is a portal not part of any formal WikiProject (ofcourse, it seems like it is its own WikiProject, just not a formal one) There seem to be some other portals that aren't part of any wikiproject (or atleast were not tagged with a WPP banner) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not about content portals themselves, but administration; however the parent category "Category:Portals" should instead be renamed to Category:Wikipedia portals, since that category is not about portal . Portals exist outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's own portals should not be taking up "Category:Portals" ; all subcategories should also use "Wikipedia portal" instead of "portal" -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (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:Umm Qais[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 15:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Both articles in this category are referring to each other in the body text already, so a category doesn't add any value here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough content to warrant a navigation structure. SFB 21:34, 15 February 2015 (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:Hellenistic colonies[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. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename These are mostly cities founded within the various Hellenistic states, not colonies outside the Hellenistic territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in principle. I am not sure that these are colonies according to the ancient Greek definition. I would prefer the second alternative, but there may be an even better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer the former to the latter, as many Helenistic foundings were re-foundings on sites of earlier inhabited places (be they Greek or not); hence the "founded" would be subject to interpretation - and probably without much distinction as the main centers of urban Hellenistic culture were of both types and not much can be discerned as different between the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Colonisation in the Hellenistic period was the process of establishing settlements (and implantations of people within existing settlements) within the territories that had been newly conquered. Since the colonies were part of the process of making those new territories part of the new states, the distinction between inside and outside doesn't make sense. As for the alternatives: "Hellenistic cities" would include places which already were well-established (like Athens). "founded by the Hellenistic states" ignores the fact that many of the colonies were refoundations or implantations of people within existing settlements (e.g. Susa, Babylon). Even "cities" is problematic, since city (Greek: polis) implies political and social structures which many of the colonies (Greek: katoikia) lacked, either initially or throughout their existence. Finally, "colony" is the standard word used for these settlements in academic literature: e.g. Cohen, G.M. 1978. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration, and Organization; Billows, RA. 1995. Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. Furius (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current classification reflects how the term is used in speaking of Greek history. Many of these articles start of describing the places as "a colony founded by Alexander the Great".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Furius: @Johnpacklambert: Many articles in this category do not mention the term 'colony' at all, while they do use the term '(ancient) city' as the primary defining characteristic. So there are three possibilities: either these articles need to be rewritten, or the category needs to be purged quite intensively, or the name of Category:Hellenistic colonies is a no-go per WP:NONDEF. Which of the three do you prefer? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. I think a fair bit of rewriting is necessary and a little bit of purging. All the cities named after a monarch (Alexandreia, Seleukeia, Laodikeia, etc.) are colonies. Others, like Pergamon, definitely are not colonies. The grey area: some colonies have subsequently taken on or reverted to another name - I'd have to check in given instances whether their status as a colony is actually attested. For all legitimate members of this category, it ought to be possible to say which dynasty/ies established the colony (or to put it another way it should be possible to assign them all to a specific sub-category of Category:Hellenistic colonies by origin). I'm happy to go through and do this (I have access to all the key reference works), but it would take a while.
There is a clear common thread that makes this a worthwhile category, though: the fact of establishment/re-establishment in the Hellenistic period. This distinguishes them as part of a specific historical phenomenon of Greco-Macedonian expansion. Furius (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for your offer! Based on that I'm happily withdrawing the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2015 (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.

Economic country classifications[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 Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the number of different economic country classifications increases, they become less and less defining for a country that belongs to any one of them. Listifying would be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first 6, Keep Tiger. I agree that we shouldn't categorize countries in this way. A particular issue is that country categories get placed in these categories which may lead to circular categorization. The contents of the Tiger category are not countries - I suggest that one be struck from the nom. DexDor (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No listifying is needed as each of these categories has a corresponding article that includes a list. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are useful for classifying countries by their economies. However, instead of categorising main country articles, how about instead categorise country economy articles (that would be more useful).. i.e. instead of categorising Australia into Category:G20 nations, categorise Economy of Australia in the category instead. Mar4d (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A category for such articles should have a name like "Economies of G8 countries" or like one of the existing categories such as Category:World Trade Organization member economies so it's not the category being discussed here. I'm not keen on such categories. DexDor (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether countries or economies, I think the rationale for the nomination (not sufficiently defining) applies to both. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep G7 as it is not are not "not defining". It is a foreign policy group, with the international protests to go along with it. Joint foreign and economic policy comes out of it. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7 was my only hesitation to nominate, since it seemed to be the first of all these G classifications. However, for example Germany is primarily described as a member of G8 (not G7) and, other example, in the Italy article the whole range from G4 (!) to G20 membership is given without any prioritization between them. So there goes the defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's just jumbling things by shared name. Just because other organizations exist, does not mean that G7 is not significant. It's like saying just because Person-Y is a member of 60 different organizations that all organizations that the person is a member of are not defining, such as being military. We look at each organization individually, not just because all of them have "G" in the name. As for G7/G8 Italy, etc are members of the G7, Russia is G7+1; the significant actions happen whether Russia is there or not. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting that G in the name is key, since I also nominated BRICS. I rather meant it from a historical perspective, G7 was the first one. Basically I think G7 lost a lot of its significance after so many other partly overlapping country classifications emerged and I think that listifying is much more meaningful than categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Those categories exist in the real world, they are not a categorizing scheme that we have created here in Wikipedia. It is a major and relevant point for a country to belong into one of those categories, as international politics may show. Cambalachero (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Keep Tiger economies, Least developed countries and G7. The only problem with the Least developed countries is that it is a quite fluid category, but it is a real world one nonetheless. The various G's and the BRICS are a mix of WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Delete G8, G15, G20 and BRICS and replace with lists if needed. These various G-groupings are either too small or too arbitrary and disputed even in the real world to make any use of. Furthermore, they cannot be merged either as they are overlapping but separate institutions. G7 is notable on its own right. Ceosad (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These categories are useful and should be kept.Afil (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2015 (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:Countries by characteristic[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: merged, mostly into Category:Countries, but some subcategories as appropriate. -- Beland (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge There doesn't seem to be a real difference in meaning between the two category names. After all, any classification must be based on one or more characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There should be a difference; countries-by-characteristic should contain (under subcats) articles about countries (although IMO many of these categories should be deleted - see above) whereas country-classifications should contain articles about the classifications (e.g. BRICS). Perhaps some category text and rearrangement is needed to clarify this. Note: The proposed merge target is currently being considered for renaming so perhaps the nom could indicate whether the proposed rename target would still be the proposed merge target of this discussion. DexDor (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that what you're saying is a meaningful difference, though I didn't find that as a clear difference between the nominated and the target category. So an explanation would be most helpful indeed. Btw I really can't imagine that the speedy rename goes ahead after I wrote a note in the speedy section pointing to the discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – purge, rearrange, rename either if desired, delete some subcats as Dexdor says, but do not merge. Oculi (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a speedy rename in play for Category:Country classifications that is totally inappropriate for the content. What is going on here? Hmains (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Countries the "by characteristic" distinction is completely useless as any subcategory by nature is a subtype of the main topic divided by a characteristic. This may as well be named Category:Subcategories of Category:Countries. There is clearly some material that should be merged to the classifications category, but this category as it stands is unworkable. SFB 21:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge. This appears to be the only "by characteristic" category in en wp. Pinging the nominator to see if they'll withdraw the withdrawl. DexDor (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a surprising flow of the discussion. I'm perfectly happy to withdraw the withdrawal in order to discuss the alternative merge, though I think that formally you wouldn't even need my consent to keep on discussing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice alternative indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (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:Ancient towns[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. I take it that this was the preferred option. If anyone wants to propose a rename to the other option, feel free. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It does not make sense to have a huge category of Ancient cities and a very small category of Ancient towns, independently of each other, while in most countries there is no distinction between cities and towns. A few child categories are already named 'Fooian towns and cities' or vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Not a useful distinction in ancient history on a global scale. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "settlements" which would include (non-urban) villages. I would prefer a reverse merge, as there is no clear distinction between a town and a city. If we have to go down a Settlements route, the arget should be "urban settlements". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - while we may make a distinction between city and town, did the ancients? And do you have verifiable reliable sources for that? My impression is that in ancient times cities started off as forts/fortifications which grew. - jc37 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is actually not to make a distinction between cities and towns. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod, hence my question for clarity : ) - I saw the optional selections and I think that they should be ruled out. - jc37 07:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there were, at times, distinctions between "towns" and "cities" in the ancient world, but many places were described by different authors as one or as another. Whether the places' character changed or the analysis changed, or whether it was just an author's choice of word without significance that we're all dwelling upon as though it were holy writ, who knows - but urban centers did differ by more than degree from rural settlements - many of which never attracted notice of ancient geographers that tried to be comprehensive of the urban ones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (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:Coastal cities and towns in Italy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Seemingly redundant categorization layer, since this category it is the only content of its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cities and towns does not form a useful subtype of populated coastal places for categorisation as it covers virtually all the same material. SFB 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We merged towns, cities and villages to "populated places" long since. The nom follows precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2015 (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:Morgantina[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) 03:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Both articles in this category are referring to each other in the body text already, so a category doesn't add any value here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough material to warrant navigation. SFB 21:42, 15 February 2015 (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:Velia[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) 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Both articles in this category are referring to each other in the body text already, so a category doesn't add any value here. For the child category, see nomination below. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough material to warrant navigation. The Eleates subcategory is not one you would easily or try to find via this route. SFB 21:43, 15 February 2015 (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:Ancient Eleates[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Both articles in this category are referring to each other in the body text already, so a category doesn't add any value here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2015 (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:Fictional rape victims[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) 03:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I think this is potentially a useful category for characters where the rape is central to their plot and/or backstory (Lisbeth Salander comes to mind, but there are others), it's currently populated with a bunch of comic and soap opera characters whose storylines, by the nature of their medium, are so long that everything eventually happens to them, and as such is not a defining characteristic for most. That sort of thing is not easy to control because of how categories work, and probably anything where rape would be a defining enough feature to put this category on a character article can be handled by Category:Rape in fiction.
Deleted in 2007 (consensus can change, just wanted to link the previous discussion). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Usually with a rationale like this, the best way to proceed is to purge the category and only have articles included for which Fictional rape victims is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main categorization of fictional characters should be by what book(s), film(s) etc they are in (e.g. Category:EastEnders characters). Categorization by occupation may also be reasonable (e.g. Category:Fictional detectives). In most cases what events (rape, divorce, domestic abuse, affair, car crash ...) have happened to a character will (even if they had a large effect on the character's life) be WP:NON-DEFINING of the article topic so we shouldn't categorize in that way (even if there a few for whom it may be considered defining). DexDor (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a natural extension of the "fictional character by role" tree. For many fictional characters, their being raped will be central to the role the character depicts and the elaboration of the plot. Societies experience of rape is often developed through the stories of rape victims in fiction. The Color Purple is but one very prominent example of this facet's importance. The different portrayals of rape via characters warrant such navigation. This material is also a useful child category of Category:Rape in fiction. I entirely disagree with Dexdor's interpretation that only the series is defining for a character, not the role played; this thinking is contrary to every strand of literary criticism in both modern and ancient times. I also disagree with a category structure that focuses on a character's "occupation", as opposed to their overall "role" (Category:Fictional slaves is perhaps a useful intersection of the two ideas that proves the point). SFB 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a character's role/occupation is being a slave then put them in the Fictional slaves category - I don't see what point that "proves". A character in a soap can have several major storylines in a year (they might be crime victim, adulterer, made redundant, ...). Over the character's lifetime dozens/hundreds of things happen to them - if we categorize characters by life events then would you be in favour of, for example, "Category:Fictional divorcees" ? DexDor (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SFB, the point I'm making is that if it's truly significant to a character who has an article, it's important enough to the story that Category:Rape in fiction can handle it. But right now, the category is a bunch of soap opera characters (who as DexDor points out, by the nature of the genre have hundreds of things happen to them that in other genres might be central to their character or plot), Batman and Robin. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a pretty defining characteristic IMO. It is not NPOV for us to declare that a character being a rapist is ALWAYS defining while being a victim of it is rarely defining. In League of Extraordinary Gentlemen both Invisible Man and Mr. Hyde are rapists but it's not necessarily the prime aspect of what they do in the comic. All that matters is that something CAN be a defining characteristic and often is, and that is the case for being a rapist or a victim of rape. Whether or not we consider the detail consequential for a particular character shouldn't matter because I doubt we'll find consistent opinions about this. We have both role-based and series-based categories and they're all important. Ranze (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference - being a rapist says a lot about the character, being a rape victim tells us the character was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is much less defining of the character (however traumatic the event might be). Also, fictional-rapists is WP:OTHERSTUFF. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could nominate Category:Fictional rapists if you don't feel it belongs on WP, but it doesn't have to be a package deal, we can discuss them separately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really baffled by your arguments here @DexDor:. To say that a fictional character is raped because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time" is so very strange that I don't know where to start! An assessment based on the level of trauma inflicted to the character is also a very odd suggestion. I kind of feel like a jerk coming back to this point because it's really not in aid of the overall discussion, but I think you need to read these statements and think them through a bit. Reading fiction as something written by someone to elicit a certain response, rather than an account of something (fictional) that happened, can be a really useful way of understanding people and the world. It's why fiction is so powerful. Certainly there are people in my life that have helped me do that and I'm very grateful. I hope there are people in your life that can do the same. :) SFB 21:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment that being a criminal (i.e. a person who makes a conscious decision to commit criminal acts) is more defining of a character than being a victim of crime (or disease, accident etc) which could just be down to bad luck. That applies both in real life and in fiction. I was certainly not suggesting "assessment based on the level of trauma inflicted to the character" - in fact, quite the reverse. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorising a character by an event. This would include murder victims, electrocuted characters, blinded characters (which is distinctly different than blind characters), characters who drowned, characters who had casual sex, characters who had underage sex, characters who engaged in S&M, etc. I don't want to trivialize it at all, but in fiction, the act could be as trivial as the author makes it. And as noted by the nom, this is (sadly) not uncommon in serialised fiction. - jc37 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Jc37 - not defining for the group of characters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (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.

Tributes to Beatles' albums[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Trivial intersection and an unnecessary splits from the parent Category:The Beatles tribute albums. Suggest upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:41, 14 February 2015 (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:Bandcamp[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) 03:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a music distribution platform, containing a small and extremely incomplete selection of artists and/or record labels which have distributed music through it. We don't do this for iTunes, or CDBaby, or eMusic, or Zunior, or any of the dozens of other comparable platforms — categorizing artists by individual website where their music happens to be available for sale is almost a perfect analogy to WP:PERFCAT, and would lead to extreme category bloat. In addition, this was wrongly filed as a subcategory of Category:Musician portals — which is not a content category for "places which are commercial music sales portals", but an internal project category for "Wikipedia pages in Portal: namespace" — but I have no idea where else to recat it more appropriately. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2015 (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:2008 United States presidential election by state[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) 03:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with the other similarly-named subcategories of Category:United States presidential elections by state. —GoldRingChip 03:03, 14 February 2015 (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:Vincent Vallières albums[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) 03:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Albums category for an artist whose albums have all been either AFDed outright, or redirected to his main BLP, for lacking any properly sourced indication of notability under WP:NALBUMS. (Even the BLP itself is an abysmally sourced stub that's barely more than a list of the albums. And on top of that, the one album that's got the strongest potential claim to standalone notability according to his BLP — gold certification, charting single — never actually got its own standalone article in the first place, so there isn't even a deletion or redirection to undo in that case.) The result, as things now stand, is that the category exists only to contain the redirects from three of his other four albums. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and source articles which properly substantiate the independent notability of the individual albums — but as things stand right now, we don't need an albums-by-artist subcategory that only contains redirects. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2015 (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/2015_February_14&oldid=1138408503"