Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16[edit]

Categories about Cultural depictions of certain celebrities which ought to be merged or changed[edit]

  • Propose deleting/merging:
Nominator's rationale: There are several categories here which I would either rename or merge to put them more in line with the standard way of categorizing depictions of celebrities/historical figures in various media, namely Category: Cultural depictions of .... I listed them all one by one below: - User:Kjell Knudde, 8:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC).
Category:Media related to Mahatma Gandhi[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: split to Category:Cultural depictions of Mahatma Gandhi and Category:Images of Mahatma Gandhi. – Fayenatic London 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would be more in line with all the other categories about cultural depictions of historical people or celebrities. The few categories that are non-fiction books or TV documentaries about Gandhi could be put in Category:Mahatma Gandhi instead. User:Kjell Knudde 23:00, 16 December 2016 (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:Parodies of Sarah Palin[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: split to new parent Category:Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin; this is intended to deal with the selective support below. This close is without prejudice to early re-nomination for merger to the new parent. The nomination might have gained fuller support if it had been worded in a more standard way, proposing renaming rather than deletion. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would be more in line with all the other categories about cultural depictions of historical people or celebrities. Plus: it's also a more general category, which could encompass more serious portrayals too, just like all the other cultural depictions categories, really. User:Kjell Knudde 23:00, 16 December 2016 (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:Manson Family in popular culture[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:Cultural depictions of British monarchs, Category:Works of Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, and otherwise as nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would be more in line with all the other categories about cultural depictions of historical people or celebrities. User:Kjell Knudde 23:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Combine Nominations/Speedy Rename All @Kjell Knudde: This will show how lazy I am but, for the ease of your fellow editors, could you merge this renames that standardize the naming format? (These would also be eligible for speedy WP:C2C in my opinion.) In any case, support all. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have put all my entries under the same heading now, since they all address the same topic. Hope it's more clear and concise now. - User:Kjell Knudde, 8:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC).
  • Support most, this is a case of WP:C2C indeed, although not entirely obviously so. We tend to use "cultural depictions" for people categories versus "in popular culture" for topic categories. A family and monarchs may well be counted as people categories. However in case of Edgar Allan Poe the two categories make a distinction between Poe as a person (in the cultural depictions category) and the works of Edgar Allen Poe (as a topic, in popular culture) and that distinction should be kept. Possibly we can rename the category to Category:Works of Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture. Finally a small detail: for British monarchs I presume the latter alternative is more suitable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2016 (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:Television series by country[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. Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Affected categories
*Category:Afghan television series‎
Nominator's rationale: While technically Category:Fooian television series should be a subcat of Category:Fooian television programs, with the programs category including only non-series programming (e.g. specials and made-for-TV films), in practice there appears to be a huge amount of confusion and resulting overlap between these by-country categories. The distinction is of little practical use, since the large majority of TV articles are about series-format programming, and makes the category tree difficult to maintain, as it will force us to split subcats further into e.g. Category:Fooian comedy television series and Category:Fooian comedy television programs. It would be much simpler to eliminate this extra layer of categorisation by upmerging Category:Fooian television series into Category:Fooian television programs (or programmes).
I haven't yet tagged all the relevant subcatgories. If someone is willing to help with the use of automated tools, please do so. Otherwise I'll come back to it soon. Paul_012 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant because by having a subcategory with television series it's easier to find other programs (e.g. documentary films) in the main category. Since we don't have a lot of other programs, as noted in the rationale, we won't always have subcategories for other programs. On the other hand I would definitely support merging the layer below (Category:Fooian comedy television series and Category:Fooian comedy television programs) because the subcategories at this level typically apply to series only. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've tagged the individual country category pages. Sorry for the delay. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge all to use program shows. Usage of "series" has WP:ENGVAR issues. I thought awhile back these types of things were renamed/merged to "shows". However, I'm fine with programs, since I think that's even more clear, and would be more inclusive of things like radio programs as well. - jc37 06:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Paul 012, Marcocapelle, and Jc37: surely it is program/programme that has ENGVAR issues; I thought "series" was no problem on that front. Isn't "shows" the preferred inclusive term, to include one-offs and TV films as well as series? – Fayenatic London 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. Thank you for reminding why we chose "show" over the rest. As for "series", it has engvar issues because in the uk "series" is equivalent to "season" in the us, while "series" in the us means all the seasons of a show. - jc37 08:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. The BBC website certainly uses "series" as you describe, but US usage of those terms is also common and understood here in the UK. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, no to the last one, let's keep shows (by whatever name) in a separate sub-hierarchy from TV organisations etc. I'd have no objection to renaming program(me)s to shows/programming. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, but then the concept cat should probably use a better term than "programming"; the way it's currently used is confusing to say the least. I won't be touching anything soon though. The whole TV tree is such a mess it's hard to know where to start. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, as TV series are worth separating from TV films and specials. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - just to make sure I'm understanding. It sounds like we all agree that the various forms of program/programme should be renamed to "shows", but there doesn't appear to be consensus to merge in the "series" cats too. is that correct? - jc37 04:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a week consensus, but this discussion wasn't originally about them, and the program/programme cats haven't been tagged for CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, I'm opposing merging series to shows/program(me)s. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all - TV-series is for scripted fiction-drama. J 1982 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That certainly is not how the categories are currently organised. Plenty of serial non-fiction programmes, including news, are included under series. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2017 (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:Mayors of Kamloops[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Three-item WP:SMALLCATs for mayors of cities. While all of the cities are large enough that mayors would probably qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, the mere potential to eventually become more populated is no longer the consensus standard for when a "Mayors of City" category is justified -- the consensus has changed, and the standard is now "a certain specific minimum number of articles actually already exists to file in it". Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of these, albeit under the old "as long as it can be presumed that additional articles are forthcoming" standard -- but the further articles never came forth, and the rules about when to create a mayors category changed. I'm batching these separately from the two-item categories below, because the consensus is not quite as solid on three-mayor categories; while three-mayor categories are usually treated the same way as two-mayor categories, there have been a few instances where a three-mayor category got kept for some other reason (such as an editor actually committing to actually getting further articles in place promptly.) As always, no prejudice against recreation if and when one or two more articles about mayors of these cities actually exist, but the usual standard is now "four or five articles do exist" rather than "four or five articles could eventually exist". Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge For Now With no objection to recreating when we get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Category:Mayors_of_Langley.2C_British_Columbia_.28city.29 Ottawahitech (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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 lost cities and 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, in the earlier discussion there was no consensus about deletion, but there was some agreement about an improved word order. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the creator of the Category, I have no problem with the renaming for a better word order. --MaeseLeon (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The proposed word order makes sense. Dimadick (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2016 (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:Mayors of Burnaby[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two-item WP:SMALLCATs for mayors of cities. While both cities are large enough that mayors would probably qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, the mere potential to eventually become more populated is no longer the consensus standard for when a "Mayors of City" category is justified -- the consensus has changed, and the standard is now "a certain specific minimum number of articles actually already exists to file in it". Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of both of these, albeit under the old "as long as it can be presumed that additional articles are forthcoming" standard -- but the further articles never came forth, and the rules about when to create a mayors category changed. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are actually four or five articles to file in them. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As Wikipedia becomes more mature, I think it makes sense to hold off on some subcategories until enough articles appear so that it aids navigation. (I'm assuming Canadian mayors can be considered part of city councils.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity, yes, that is how it works here. We don't have anything like the system seen in some American cities, where the mayor is functionally a "governor" operating separately from and potentially vetoing decisions made by a separate "city council"; in virtually all Canadian cities, the mayor sits directly on the council in the role of "chair" or "president" (and while he or she is certainly a powerful influencer of the council's agenda, he or she doesn't have the ability to override or veto a council decision that goes against his or her own wishes.) And while there are occasional exceptions, most Canadian mayors have served as ward councillors before acceding to the mayoralty anyway, and would thus still get categorized as city councillors even if the mayoralty were a separate entity from the council body. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Category:Mayors_of_Langley.2C_British_Columbia_.28city.29 Ottawahitech (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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:Economics aphorisms[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) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, most of the category consists of catchphrases, with only a few aphorisms. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination JQ (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2016 (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:Wikipedians who don't GAF[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) 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, categorizing users by something they do not do, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept to spell out the acronym. The current name, at least to someone my age, is not obvious. I'll defer to others as to whether the category should be kept at all. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (no opinion on renaming) (struck per comment below) - categorizes users who subscribe to the philosophy espoused in the essay, Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, a well-known, 10-year-old essay (albeit a tongue-in-cheek one) on (basically) not taking things personally. It supports collaboration by encouraging users to adopt this philosophy, and not derive personal insult from the strange machinations of the project. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does encouraging users to adopt that philosophy support collaboration? VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very simplistic explanation is that it encourages users to check their egos and biases at the login screen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's plausible, I suppose, as a reason for a talk page notice, like a userbox or some such. That isn't a reason to group into a category. - jc37 06:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't think of any collaboration purpose on this basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no benefit to collaboration (or per Marcocapelle). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete a category that the users who join find useful? Who are we to make decisions for others about who they hang out with?
@VegaDark: Do you feel nominators have a responsibility to bring wp:XfD discussions to the attention of a wide cross-section of participants so that lasting consensus can be achieved and documented? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: for what it's worth I was made aware of the discussion because the category link on my user page turned pink, as links to pages under deletion discussion do if you have a certain script enabled. I suspect most members of this category do not. However I'm not sure where you could better advertise it. The few hundred users who have the infobox on their page probably aren't watching its template talk page, and it's not like there's a "Don't Give a Fuck Noticeboard". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe nominators have the duty to tag categories. It's nice, but not required, to go beyond that - those who are interested will notice the edit appear on their watchlist. I'm not sure what you are expecting beyond this? VegaDark (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to the closing admin, but this comment (later suggesting a rename) is from the same user who suggested "Strong Keep" above. VegaDark (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the bolded word "comment" preceding my comment. But you're right, on second thought my later comment conflicts with my earlier bolded vote, so I have clarified. I see now that while the essay has been around since 2006 the category was only actually created this year, and furthermore it's been preemptively removed from the userboxes just a couple days ago, seemingly unrelated to this discussion, so now this category has only two members (users who explicitly added the category to their userpages). If we've only had the category for 9 months then I don't really have any strong feelings about it, but I do think it's valid per the bullet at the root of this indent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. - jc37 08:39, 27 December 2016 (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:Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, Category:Fiqh scholars[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. Cerebellum (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like these are all about one and the same thing.  Sandstein  20:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think these are the same thing, actually. A jurist is a judge or a lawyer, who's directly involved in the administration and dispensation of the law, while a scholar of law is a person who merely studies and analyzes the work that the jurists are doing. By comparison, we also have Category:Legal scholars separately from Category:Jurists, because the latter are people who do law while the former are people who work at universities to study the work of the latter. It is certainly possible sometimes for a person to do both things — but that's not because they're the same thing, it's because a person can switch focus from one field to the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat: Well, no: our article "jurist" does treat this word as a synonym to "scholar of jurisprudence": "A jurist (a word coming from medieval Latin), also known as legal scholar or legal theorist, is someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law). Such a person can work as an academic, legal writer or law lecturer." And "fiqh" means "islamic jurisprudence", so "Fiqh scholars" and "Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence" are also just two different terms for the same thing. I therefore maintain that the scope of all three categories is identical. (Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, although not experienced with Islamic law or tradition.)  Sandstein  17:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Lawyers and judges may also be scholars, but they may be mere legal hacks. The three items seem to be much the same. A jurist is a scholar of what the law is or should be, rather than a mere practitioner of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging, all three categories are about scholars of Islam. However, Category:Jurists of Islamic law needs to be purged because it also contains some people occupied in secular law. In fact I would rather prefer Category:Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence or Category:Fiqh scholars as the name of the merged category, since these names more clearly indicate what the category is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for reference, there are two sets of populated categories in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Spanish (wikidata: [1] [2]; there are also two categories in French, but one is an otherwise empty parent).
Also, I looked for recent discussions on a related categories. CFD 2015 July 10 recognised a distinction between the religious background of the scholar and the object of study. CFD 2015 Aug 30 merged "Ulama" to Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain a split of academics from practitioners, e.g. David Pearl (lawyer) is in the former as a lecturer & writer, but is not a practitioner of Islamic law. We do not need three categories, but only two. I am not sure what would be the best names. – Fayenatic London 23:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any sysop going to close this? Two months seems a long time for a non-discussion. (I have no idea what todo do with them, BTW. Got here because I was interested in reading the CfD immediately above.) — Iadmc♫talk  21:30, 15 January 2017 (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/2016_December_16&oldid=1127486629"