Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9[edit]

Category:Dramatic portrayals of Jesus[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. MER-C 12:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect (as it dates back to 2004). Apart from the parent category Drama, there is no real difference in scope between these categories, and the drama-related sub-cats should be more specific drama-related hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 9 January 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:Images of people[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following name of parent Category:Wikipedia images by subject, see

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_31#Category:Images_by_subject. The current name is confusing as it held both media file categories and Category:Portraits (which I moved out of it). – Fayenatic London 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For the same reasons. - User:Kjell Knudde, 9:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC).
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.

Cultural depictions[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 both into a new Category:Cultural depictions of people. It sounds like there is other clean-up that will follow, such as creation of a category for lists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and disperse. CfD 2015 Nov 30 accepted that there was no real distinction between "fictional versions" and "cultural depictions", and that the latter is the preferred term. (It covers films, TV, theatre, novels, comics etc. For visual arts, go up to the parent Category:Depictions of people.) I tried earlier today to add distinguishing criteria to the existing categories, but do not have a justification for keeping the sub-cats by person in a separate category from the remaining works that depict real people; I conclude that this restructuring is necessary. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 (stays close to the original proposal)
Rename Category:Depictions of people in popular culture to Category:Cultural depictions of people and fictional characters
Rename Category:Fictional versions of real people to Category:Cultural depictions of people
ALT2 (more drastic)
Move Works based on literary characters away from this category, merge (2) into (1) with the proposed rename of (1), and harmonize the names of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say that I do support "Cultural depictions" in the name, in accordance with the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So ALT-2 would merge/rename both (1) and (2) as Category:Cultural depictions of people? I would not oppose this, as doing away with the word "real" in these category names would avoid POV disputes over religious figures, e.g. cultural depictions of Adam and Eve. I still think it is worth segregating the list-articles into a separate new category, but that can be done later. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, it would completely avoid the confusion about fictional characters. And by the way I fully agree that segregating the list-articles into a separate new category can be done in any scenario. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT-2. I have amended the nomination accordingly. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I too favor the renaming. "Cultural depictions" has a broader scope. Plus: when real people are used in works it's always a fictional depiction, due to the fact that comics, novels, films, TV series, cartoons,... are all fictional works. As realistically as a historical character can be portrayed in a biopic: it's always going to be a romanticization. His life story will always be a compilation of dramatically interesting moments in his life, adding some artistic license because obviously the writers weren't there at those key events. At the same time every biopic is a theatrical dramatization instead of just a dry academic text, so that the audience can enjoy it more.- User:Kjell Knudde, 9:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC).
  • Support Reasonable renaming, and I am always a bit suspicious that the distinction between culture and popular culture is in the eye of the beholder. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename we need to get away from the undefinable term "popular culture".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 13 February 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:LGBT history 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 and do as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and disperse, one category "by period" should be sufficient instead of the two existing categories. After renaming, Category:Ancient LGBT history, Category:Medieval LGBT history and the people category (see nomination underneath) can be moved to Category:LGBT history by period, the single articles can be moved to Category:LGBT history and Category:Shudo doesn't have to be moved, it is in Category:History of pederasty already. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is the best outcome after recent changes. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 12 January 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:Pre-19th-century LGBT people[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 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, more conventional category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 9 January 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:Regional, separatist and ethnic parties in Germany[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 12:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While some of these parties may be considered "regionalist" parties, most of them are neither ethnic nor separatist parties. Being bulked together in this weird form may damage the reputation of these parties. What they all have in common is that they are regional parties, therefore proposing rename. PanchoS (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as being entirely too encompassing of simple and possibly contentious claims about the parties using the current name. Collect (talk) 16:53, 9 January 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:Deep Throat[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. delldot ∇. 06:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:V and WP:COP
This mostly categorizes individual people who were not Deep Throat, the secret Watergate informant for the Washington Post. In the 1970s, there was a lot of speculation about the identity and motives of the person who helped to end the Nixon presidency but, in 2005, Carl Bernstein confirmed it was actually Mark Felt. This category is basically a fictional/alternative history category that imagines if it was someone else. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Hmains as the category creator, tagged the BLP Noticeboard and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Politics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nomination for deletion contains false and/or exaggerated for effect information, as can be seen by reading the articles in the category. While, of course the category contains the possible Deep Throat people and the real person, it also includes studies and films and so on about the subject. This is part of American history, which altogether contains some mystery and fiction--as is so with any country. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: 8 people are in the category because they were falsely accused (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and 2 more (9, 10) are in the category because they falsely accused someone else of being Deep Throat (Watergate). RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can not e a category due to WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:BLP concerns. A list with prose describing the various theories and their refutation would be much less problematic, but as a category it is plain wrong since most of these have nothing to do with deep throat other than as speculation - and not always rational speculation, either. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent category Category:Watergate scandal. I fail to see how is this a different topic. Dimadick (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Watergate scandal. "Deep throat" (if I remember correctly) was an anonymous source during the uncovering of this affair. If we purged those who were not Deep Throat (the alternative course), we would have little left. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are 22 articles in the category; removing 8 of them leaves 14 articles--more than 'little left'. I also note that the word 'accused' being used here, as though it were a criminal matter which it does not seem to be. Only one honorable person was Deep Throat, one who disagreed with the criminality of Nixon and his cohorts. Deep Throat is at the heart of the Watergate cover-up history. Hmains (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even I think the books and movies here are worth categorizing, which is why they are *all* already in the Category:Works about the Watergate scandal. Just about everyone writing about Watergate will include Deep Throat to some extent since he's at the heart of the Watergate cover-up history. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete putting a bunch of people in a category of suspected somebodys is rarely a good idea (should we do that with a killers of JFK category? or a suspected racists category?, which seem more interesting to our readership than people well cleared of whatever was alleged) and all these should be in Watergate categories already. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no upmerge) per RD. Categories should not be used for things-having-some-connection-with-topic - that's what normal article links are do. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only article that should be hear is Mark Felt. Others are either categorization by non-defining, or categorization by not at all true facts. Even with Felt it is not clear that such categorization makes sense, and it makes even less sense since we cannot place other things in this category. A merge is not a good idea because some of these articles have no defining connection to Watergate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 23 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_9&oldid=1088120028"