Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 16

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

July 16[edit]

Category:Inventions 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 4. I have moved the CFD banner from the talk page to the category page. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarification still needed - What are our criteria for an "invention by country"? This has festered on for years and we're no better off. These categories are still no more than a playpen for POV nationalist socks. Is a "Croatian invention" one in Croatia, by a Croatian, by a Croatian ex-pat, or by someone with Croatian ancestry a century earlier? Is sourcing required for these claims? Or is WP:V to be ignored for these? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it has been discussed before, please provide the links to the previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure of the previous discussion seems to make sense. Please propose a rename or delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But such a statement needs more authority behind it than just one editor's footnote. The long-running sock wars won't be deflected by that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 July 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:LGBT films directed by women[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: convert to list, List of LGBT films directed by women. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While I can see a valid argument that a general Category:Films directed by women category should potentially be allowed to exist, a prior attempt was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_27#Category:Films_directed_by_women (in which the only person who even attempted to mount that argument voted "neutral" rather than "keep".) However, the set of "films directed by women" certainly does not intersect with the set of "LGBT-related films" in a more notable or defining way than it intersects with "all films" -- so this does not have a stronger basis than a general "Films directed by women" category would. (While it's technically true that women directors are much more likely to make films about LGBT women than men are, that's not a hard and fast rule -- there have been lesbian-themed films directed by men, and women have directed films about gay men -- and we already have Category:Lesbian-related films to cover off the matter of the themes present in the film, so the gender of the director isn't saliently related to that point.) It's true that consensus can change, so it's worth testing for whether there's a consensus to recreate and repopulate "Films directed by women", where this could then be retained as a subcategory -- but if consensus remains that the gender of a film's director isn't a useful point of categorization for other films, then it doesn't have a special reason to exist in a uniquely LGBT-specific context either. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If the category is kept, rename to Category:LGBT-related films directed by women, which the category creator approves. Otherwise, no opinion on the deletion proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gender is an issue specifically with lesbian-related films directed by women, which is, as I said in the category description, a niche subset. It matters because lesbian films made by men always draw fire for the presumed inauthenticity of the homoerotic/emotional experience. Categories exist in part to help people find these niches. I don't see why we would want to silence this genre or deny that it is unique. I'm not proposing "Films directed by left-handed, blue-eyed women," after all, which would be frivolous. This is a category where gender matters to the filmmaker and audience. GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The gender of the film director is not uniquely connected to LGBT-related film in a manner different than it's connected to all film in general — yes, women are underrepresented as film directors, but that fact isn't more defining of LGBT-themed films than it is of superhero films or war films or science fiction films or romantic comedy films. So we can't justify this as a special case, if consensus doesn't favour categorizing films by the gender of their director outside of the LGBT-specific genre too. And no, categories aren't permitted for every possible "niche" characteristic that two or more article topics might happen to share — we categorize on defining characteristics, not on every single trait that a topic happens to have. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that this category also may contain films directed by women that are portraying gay men, bisexual people and transsexual people regardless of gender. So the argument about lesbian-related films does not hold. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Is there any objection to creating an article containing the same listing as the current category? For me, that would serve the same purpose -- helping readers find linkages among a genre of movies. Thanks. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you could actually reliably source a substantive introduction to the list which demonstrated a real reason why it's noteworthy, then yes, you could do that. But it would need to contain evidence that "LGBT films directed by women" has actually been the subject of actual analysis about its importance — we don't just routinely allow people to create lists of every grouping it's conceivably possible to list either, but also require lists to show evidence that the topic is a subject of reliable source interest and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. GetSomeUtah (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, consider a list. Renata (talk) 23:05, 30 July 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:Local bodies of Nepal[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) 05:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Excessive subcategorization. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'm not really seeing a clear distinction between the two topics here either. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 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:7th-century disestablishments in the Roman Empire[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 nominated. There is consensus not to stay at the current name, but no consensus to merge to Byzantine. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the Roman Empire no longer existed in the 7th century and all articles listed here belonged to the Exarchate of Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I wondered whether the target should be Byzantine Empire, but the Exarchate article indicates a history of rebellion against Constantinople. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT' I'm with Peter on this. The target should be the Byzantine Empire. No other exarchate has its own category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do however have autonomous entity year trees, such as Category:Years in Roman Egypt, Category:Years in Ottoman Syria and Category:Years in Iraqi Kurdistan.GreyShark (dibra) 13:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Byzantine is certainly clearer than Roman in this case. As Peterkingiron noted, in practice this Exarchate was more or less an independent state. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 13:58, 25 July 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.

Years of the 4th and 5th century in the Byzantine Empire[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/Delete. Timrollpickering 11:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more categories
The following categories become empty after the above mergers:
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article in every category. This is a plain follow-up nomination on the earlier Roman Empire discussion: merge ancient year categories to decade categories. A second merge target is mostly not needed (with one exception) because all articles are in a year tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Few of these have many articles and are unlikely to gain more. Keep up the good work of pruning these twig categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 16 July 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:Norwegian erotic photographers[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. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated XY cat. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with XY provided both X and Y are notable, AND the intersection leads to a sufficiently populated category. We have many cases where country-specific XYs exist for large countries but not small ones. So I am only nominating this one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: The cases you are referring to are (or should be) categories that do not have an explicit subcategory "by country" or "by nationality" allowing full diffusion, as is the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption for "overall accepted subcategorization schemes". For any category where "by country" subcategorization is permitted at all, any country's subcategory is permitted to exist as soon as at least one article can be filed in it — so Marcocapelle is correct that the only valid basis for deleting this would be a consensus that subcategorization by country isn't warranted at all here, on a batch nomination that included all of the sibling categories, more than half of which are also single-entry subcats (and even the ones with more than one article still aren't particularly huge.) But if we permit subcategorization by nationality in this tree at all, then the size of any individual country's individual subcategory is not relevant to its includability anymore — once we decide that nationality subcategories are acceptable, any country gets to have one as long as it's not a completely empty category that exists only as a placeholder for possible future content. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – either the scheme Category:Erotic photographers by nationality should be retained as is, or it should be upmerged in its entirety to Category:Erotic photographers (with the 22 American ones perhaps retained as a subcat). There are 7 subcats with 1 entry so it is difficult to see why the Norwegian one should be considered separately. Oculi (talk) 19:49, 16 July 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/2017_July_16&oldid=1074283281"