Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas by century[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has been renamed (incorrectly) out-of-process. The subcats are all 'people' categories, as opposed to 'peoples'. Oculi (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Oculi: Have a look at the history. I just recently created Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by century and renamed it as it seems the term 'Indigenous peoples' is more commonly used everywhere I looked. I even nominated a merger. I didn't rename it out of process because I just created it and nobody else had even edited it. --Slivicon (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Edit: I just noticed your comment on my merger. So, basically, if you're correct in that they should both be kept, I don't really care if you want to rename this back, since I'm the one that created it in the first place. My goal is consistency, nothing else. I just thought having both "Indigenous people of the Americas" and "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" was a mistake, but if you're correct, then apparently it was intentional. --Slivicon (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close (or wait) -- We have a people/peoples discussion elsewhere on this daily page. Can we reach a consensus there and then have consequential changes (such as this) made afterwards. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 4 July 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:Rastafari movement[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:  Relisted at 2015 SEP 1 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article moved from Rastafari Movement to Rastafari through discussion, but basically that title and other previous titles (like Rastafarian and Rastafarianism) are reductive titles created by non-adherents. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 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:Rastafarians[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:  Relisted at 2015 SEP 1 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the above. This is complicated by the fact that the Religion Rastafari is also the term for the adherents in the singular or plural form. The term Rastafarian is considered reductive and offensive. My inclination is Category:Rastafari practitioners ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 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:1915 establishments in Formosa[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. Note that there is no longer a duplication of categories, since Category:1915 establishments in Taiwan has been deleted after this discussion started. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Taiwan is the common name for the category, rather than the name of Formosa. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename pewr nom. WE have adopted the policy of using the names of contemporary poliites. Formosa is a Portuguese name and only appropriate during collonial rule, which ended with the expulsion of the Dutch in 1662 (seeTaiwan#History). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it was called "Formosa" during the period under Japanese rule, in the English-speaking world.[1][2] Just look at all those Pacific War maps from the U.S. Navy calling the island "Formosa". Like it was called as such during the debate on whether to invade the Philippines or Formosa where the US Navy favored Formosa and the US Army (MacArthur) favored going back to fix Bataan and Corregidor [3]; It was called Taiwan after WWII, and after the Chinese Civil War, people still called it "Formosa" (such as at the 1960 Olympics) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge We generally follow the standard English-language naming practices of the time unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. We should rename to Formosa from 1945 back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 13 July 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:Films set in mountains[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless we're talking about the adventures of Middle Earth dwarves and such *inside* mountains -- which we are not -- this has got to be "on," I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what if they're set in the mountains but not on a mountain ? (ie, what is the scope of this category, mountainous terrain, or a mountain? ) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable genre, not defining and basically subjective. How much of a movie must be set in/on (a) mountain(s) to qualify and what reliable sources tell us that it is. While I might think it defining to movies such as the Eiger Sanction or the Sound of Music, do reliable sources? and what about any old film that is set in Denver, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, or the numerous Hindi-language films where the stars sing in the rain on various mountain-sides, does that define all of these films? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is non-defining to films, especially since how much of the film needs to be in the mountains is unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non WP:DEFINING characteristic. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 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:Anti-austerity measures protests in the European Union[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:Anti-austerity protests in the European Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Anti-austerity movement. Charles Essie (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really keep "protests" in the category name, C2C to parent and per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 7 July 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:Indigenous people of the Americas[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Appears to be attempting to be the same category. 'Indigenous peoples' seems to be the more common naming. Slivicon (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – these are 2 completely different categories, one a subcat of Category:People (for individuals) the other of Category:Indigenous peoples, for groups of people. Oculi (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then re-split -- Oculi is right in principle, but that is now how either category is in fact being used. One (the target) should be on ethnicities and the other (the subject) should parent categories for biography articles on individuals of those ethnicities. The problem is that both are trying to do both. A further problem is that we also have the Americas split inot four subcontinents - North, Central, South and the Caribeean. This all need a lot of rationalisation. It is not fair to askj the closing admin to do this, but perhaps someone else can do so when a consensus has been reached. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but sort out, per last 2. All a bit of a mix-up now. Would a better container category for non-bio, non-"people group" articles help? Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both "peoples" refers to ethnic groups while "people" refers to the collective grouping of individuals. I would support renaming Category:Indigenous people of the Americas to Category:Indigenous persons of the Americas but have not gotten any support for such a move.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:31, 9 July 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:Taito NESiCAxLive games[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. MER-C 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Taito created and maintains the NESiCAxLive arcade system, not all games using the service are developed by them. Companies that support this arcade system include Arc System Works, Square Enix, CAVE, Treasure, and SNK Playmore to name a few. It would be incorrect to tag some of their games under the umbrella of "Taito games" when "NESiCAxLive games" is definitely more apt. Jotamide (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The above rationale is good. The category was likely named as such because the original NESiCAxLive page was named Taito NESiCAxLive (before being renamed) and this led to the reason why the category is named as such. The change in name to just NESICAxLive was done to bring the page into sync with wikipedia pages in other languages, and lets be honest there are no other NESiCAxLives around. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:32, 15 July 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: Matthews family[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. Merging to Category:Wesley Clover is unnecessary because the two relevant articles are directly in that category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly merge to Category:Wesley Clover. Wesley Clover appears to own a chain of resorts and Wesley Clover Foundation, which the family members run owns Wesley Clover Parks. The family members are engaged in running these bsuinesses. Whether they all need pages is a question for an AFD, not here, but I do not think the family really have separate notability apart from the business and its profits. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the article on Matthews daughter survives AfD, we have an article on a man and two of his children. They can all be adequately linked from his biography. Otherwise we would need to create a family category for Jeffrey R. Holland, Patricia T. Holland, Matthew S. Holland and David F. Holland. In fact we get more people there, and with an LDS Apostle, his wife who served in top LDs leadership in her own right, and sons who are a university president and a Harvard professor, this is a family of notable individuals, but not enough potential articles to justify a category, and the same applies here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 9 July 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:People with alcoholism or addiction[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. MER-C 12:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining, full of potential BLP issues and all too similar to previously deleted Categories Category:People with alcoholism, Category:Alcoholics. Egghead06 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless self-confessed, this is potentially libellous. There is also an issue of verification, quite apart from (regrettably) beiing too common to merita category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure I follow the libel argument because each person in the category mentions their alcoholism or their addiction. It is characterized as a disease by modern medicine. Other diseases have categories. Spell out the BLP issues, so that I can respond.--JumpLike23 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining, plus the obvious verification problems. I've already removed it from a couple of articles about people who may have been heavy drinkers but alcoholism was absolutely unverified. Glancing through the list, there are others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then, merge there needs to be a category for people who self-identify as addicts or alcoholics based on coverage the subject gets. The Libel and BLP point doesn't work because many of those people have significant coverage of their treatment for drug and alcohol abuse or drug and alcohol abuse per se. How is that different than the people with cancer category? --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even the self identifying alcoholics category got deleted in 2012 for similar seasons.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How then do we tag people who are notable for their drug and alcohol addictions or their work toward recovery who are still living?--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to? I'd question whether anyone was notable for their drug or alcohol addictions. All of these subjects are notable for other things, and they just happen to have (had) drug or alcohol problems. Drug / alcohol addictions are not defining characteristics with respect to notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that no one on here is notable for their drug and alcohol abuse per se. However, my point is that the subject itself receives coverage such that it is notable and worthy of a category. I agree that the language may be problematic, which may make the category untenable. I think we should try to make it work though.--JumpLike23 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then listify instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not defining. Neutralitytalk 23:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, as are most physical/medical characteristics - people with cleft palates, left-handed people, people with glass eyes, people with false limbs, people with wikiphobia, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides BLP issues and being at times non-defining, there is also the fact that the name is unclear. Does it mean alcoholism or alcohol addiction, or does it mean any addiction. The fact that it is unclear makes it a non-workable category name. If it includes any addiction, it has extremely fuzzy limits. In fact being an alcoholic is hard to define. Then there is the issue of the fact that many people are only alcohlics for part of their lives. The whole thing is a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concede.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 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:Indian comedy horror 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: no consensus without prejudice to a fresh rename nomination for the parent category and all country categories simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is horror comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 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_July_3&oldid=1087824909"