Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 14

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

April 14[edit]

Category:Art 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: delete all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's comment here; art films do not seem to be defining characteristics of films. Also appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ToThAc (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even our article about art film defines the term as "a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience", which means it's an incredibly subjective classification rather than a neutral and defining one — it basically encompasses every single film that you're likely to have to go to a repertory cinema or a film festival, instead of your local multiplex, to actually see, which represents an unmaintainably large percentage of all films that exist. It also depends on where you're looking at it from, too: in North America, Fassbinder films certainly play in "art houses" — but I'm pretty damn sure he's not nearly as niche in Germany. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see my comment in the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all If there's one film genre category that is subject to multiple issues around WP:OR, the it is this one. I've lost count of the number of times this has been added to an article, without any sourcing, and then edit-warring taking place. I don't see any net gain to having this category tree. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too broad a category, and its regional application is also worth noting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2019 (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 Atheists[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 08:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of two unrelated traits. As always, Wikipedia does not create "people who happen to be both X and Y" categories for every combination of X and Y that happens to describe two or more people -- to justify this category, it would need to be possible to actually create an article about "LGBT atheism" as a specific and identifiable and noteworthy type of atheism, not just to find a handful of queerfolk who happen to be atheists. And even if this were to be kept for some reason I can't fathom, it would still have to be renamed to Category:LGBT atheists for MOS:CAPS reasons anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the 11 sub-cats of Category:LGBT people by religion. I see no reason to single it out for deletion. I would suggest, however, that it should be broadened and renamed to include agnostics. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's only there because I put it there while listing this for deletion, and even then I only did that because it had no LGBT parentage at all, and was a subcategory only of Category:Atheists. So its membership in other categories isn't in and of itself a reason why it's necessary — even a patently ridiculous category like Category:Nine-toed LGBT Hare Krishnas with red hair would still have to be a subcategory of other categories simply by the definition of how categories work. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it wasn't fully/properly parented when you found it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion -- it's a very common issue. If you hadn't added it to Category:LGBT people by religion I would have done so myself. (As a matter of fact, 'twas I who adjusted the parent cat from Category:Atheism to Category:Atheists.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the fact that it wasn't fully/properly parented when I first found it was a deletion criterion in and of itself — what I said is that because anybody can add any category to any other category at any time, the fact that it is parented now isn't in and of itself a keep criterion either. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a reason for singling out though (even while nominator does not mention it), in the sense that a number of religions are or were at odds with LGBT, and people combining a religion with LGBT were quite extraordinary, which may be a good reason to keep those categories. That does not apply to atheism though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing odd about it whatsoever. It's possible to write actual articles about the relationships between the LGBT community and organized religions — LGBT in Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, Buddhism and sexual orientation, Hinduism and LGBT topics, and on and so forth, are all articles that actually exist about significant and noteworthy and reliably sourceable topics. Per WP:CATEGRS, the justification for an "LGBT X" intersection such as this, always requires the ability to write an actual article about what makes "LGBT X" a notable thing. Such an article cannot be written about the intersection of LGBT with atheism — because for one thing, atheism is not an organized system of belief, so it has no official position either way on LGBT people (and no movement of LGBT people trying to push for change in the official position it doesn't have) to write about. Atheism is not a religion, it's simply a lack of religious belief, so it has no pro or anti gay tenets for atheists to either subscribe to or reject. So there's literally nothing that can be said about the relationship between LGBT and atheism beyond the cursory "there are some LGBT people who happen to identify as atheists, the end" — but the justification for a CATEGRS intersection requires the ability to write an actual article about that intersection as a topic, not just a list of names.
    And I did already say this in my nomination: "to justify this category, it would need to be possible to actually create an article about "LGBT atheism" as a specific and identifiable and noteworthy type of atheism". I know you've decided to automatically oppose everything I say on principle of me being me, but you don't get to accuse me of not giving reasons when I gave clear reasons that are very clearly consistent with CATEGRS. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Comment I always find it frustrating that Wikipedia doesn't have more dynamic searches so you can click on the categories for LGBT people, Atheists, from London and get the results you want without having to have CFD decide whether that intersection is meaningful to other readers. That's how most database searches work. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete Per WP:OCEGRS. I was firmly in the "Keep" camp because I expected that people would leave the religion of their childhood because they didn't welcome LGBT embers but then I clicked on the articles. One is only inferred to be atheist because he is a communist and two were raised Jewish but no longer practice but their reasons aren't given. The article for Marlene Dietrich (last paragraph here) is the only one to give a reason for atheism and it wasn't related to sexual identity. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on RevelationDirect's clear showing that the category is violating our ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per @RevelationDirect. Not a valid diffusion ot intersection category. I also suggest having a look at Category:LGBT Wiccans, where after hand-picking a few of the 11 members the link between sexual and religious orientations was thin at most. Place Clichy (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an intersection widely recognised as unique, per WP:OCEGRS. Religious LGBT people are notable because religions are widely perceived to conflict with non-straight orientations. There is no inherent or apparent conflict between atheism and LGBT. feminist (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2019 (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:Theatre museums in Alabama[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: upmerge (though its almost moot at this point, given that the category is empty). (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
The Alabama subcategory only has 1 article with limited room for growth, there are no other state-level subcategories, and the target national category only has 5 loose articles. Breaking up those 6 articles by state won't aid navigation. (The one article, Alabama Stage and Screen Hall of Fame, is already well-categorized in other Alabama museum categories so no dual upmerge is needed.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No need to break these out by state. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I created the category, happy to see it upmerged into the national dm (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the single article, I found there was also a Category:Media museums in Alabama with only that article so I moved the entry to Category:Media museums in the United States. I'm not sure anymore how to speedy delete an empty category, but I'm sure someone here knows how to do so... dm (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2019 (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:Fort Charlotte, Mobile[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
Fort Charlotte, Mobile was a French fort in the Lousiana territory that is now a museum in Alabama. No conceptual objection the category but it only has that main article and I can't think of a potential second article, let alone a fifth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to merge as the article is well (perhaps excessively well) categorised already. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not need a one article category with a like named article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2019 (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:Obsolete templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#Category:Obsolete templates

Category:Kingdom of Great Britain 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: merge to Category:18th-century British people and Category:Kingdom of Great Britain. MER-C 08:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap with Category:18th-century British people. ‎ Only 2 actual articles, both about Secretaries of State, not actual people. I study history quite a lot. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's relevant because most UK editors regard "British" as a demonym for the state much as "French" pertains to the French state. However, while the territory of the French state has remained relatively stable in modern history, the same cannot be said for the UK. So there is a tendency among UK editors to "annex" parts of other Islands to the UK that were distinct entities in previous centuries. That's why the 18th century British people category contains entries for people unconnected to the UK at that time. While they may have been subjects of the Crown, they were still Irish (i.e. not "British"). It is incorrect to take predecessor states as automatic parts of the current state at ahistorical times. This inaccuracy would only be reinforced if the current nomination passed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked in 18th-century British people there were plenty of Irish entrants. Has there been a clearout? Anyway, have striken my vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. I very much doubt people in any part of Ireland were identifying as "British". This is much more the result of a reaction to 19th century Irish Nationalism. Northern Ireland was not a separate entity until about 1920. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge along the lines of Marcocapelle. For anybody caring enough about whom Britishness was or was not applicable in the 18th century, they already know enough about the topic not to be confused with the proposed solution. Place Clichy (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Does Marco have an actual proposal up there? I see some musings, not a solution. Let this proposal die, then let a new one come forward. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is a manual split merge to the beforementioned categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2019 (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:Religion in Slovenia by city[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete but move Category:Religion in Ljubljana to Category:Religion in Slovenia. In Slovenia there is too little content on Judaism and Islam or on any other religions to diffuse that among the different cities of the country. Even the capital Ljubljana currently has only 5 stand alone articles next to a churches subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Editors should also view the similar CFD re Polish cities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2019 (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.

Centuries in Azerbaijan[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries that did not exist yet. Azerbaijan was part of various Middle Eastern states until around 1800 when it was conquered by Russia from Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With notable Polish exceptions, the nom is correct to state that "we usually do not have century categories for countries that did not exist yet". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2019 (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:Egypt under the Fatimid Caliphate[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/withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the Fatimid Caliphate was centered in Egypt so almost everything that applies to the Fatimid Caliphate applies to Egypt and vice versa for that period. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose that is a common misconception, but erroneous nonetheless. The Fatimid Caliphate originated in what is now Tunisia (Ifriqiya), and spread over much of the Maghreb and Sicily during its first sixty years. Even after it became "centered in Egypt", it retained extensive territories in the Levant. So not every event in the Fatimid Caliphate is also an event in Egypt, which is the rationale behind this category. Constantine ✍ 09:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Constantine. By the way, the Fatimid Caliphate conquered Egypt in 969, following their victory over the Ikhshidid dynasty. An earlied Fatimid attempt to conquer Egypt, in 934, had failed. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Constantine. It's a bit like GB & UK distinctions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - per Constantine, I'm not really familiar with this area of history so I cannot say with absolute certainty if this nomination is justified or not. From the article Fatimid Caliphate though it appeared the kingdom extended well beyond modern-day Egypt. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2019 (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:Emory Johnson[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 45 articles on films he was involved in, it's a WP:PERFCAT. Le Deluge (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2019 (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 atheists and agnostics[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING
It is a well established consensus against the usage of categories regarding the religious viewpoints of fictional individuals (see 1st discussion and 2nd discussion). While atheism and agnosticism are not a religion per se, the same logic applies. Looking through the numerous articles in this category, I could find very few that said anything on the fictional character's faith or lack there of. Also a good chunk characters are from comedy series, where a one-off joke about religion or God is used as a supposed reliable citation for the character's views. In the odd case that the fictional character's atheist/agnostic/secular views are a defining component, the deletion of this category would still not be a great loss as there are cats such as Category:Atheism in television which would probably be more appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (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:Leeds Rhinos Hall of Fame inductees[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. A list of the current contents in available at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 14 if wanted (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT
The Leeds Rhinos are a professional rugby team/club in England and this award was started in 2017, although the players are from much earlier. Typically, specific team HOFs have a display case or wall somewhere in the home stadium but I wasn't able to confirm that in this case. While all the articles mention playing for the Rhinos (and are categorized as such) most don't mention this award at all and none in the lede so this doesn't seem defining. These team-specific award have become nearly universal in many leagues: the first two Super League club articles I clicked on included Warrington Wolves#Hall of Fame inductees and Halifax R.L.F.C.#Halifax RLFC Hall of Fame. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We deleted similar team/club specific halls of fame in CFD here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete as OCAWARD: Listify if necessary, as usual for such categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2019 (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:Sinhala Buddhist deities[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is about Sinhalese people, not the Sinhala language. Danielklein (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sinhala usually refers to the language, Sinhalese usually refers to the people. Sort of how Nahua refers to the people and Nahuatl is the proper name for their language. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2019 (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:Icelandic art 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: nominating the entire category tree instead per Marcocapelle's suggestion. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one page: Virgin Mountain. I can think of no other possible entries fitting this category, and the category's scope as a whole seems vague. ToThAc (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having only a single entry doesn't mean more can't be added in the future. If the scope is too vague, it should be clarified instead of deleted. If the category is simply not useful, then it should be deleted. Danielklein (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for comparison I checked the articles in Category:American art films and Category:Danish art films and based on those it became clear that 'art film' is not a defining characteristic of an individual film. So the whole tree of Category:Art films may be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2019 (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/2019_April_14&oldid=1079915268"