Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16

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

June 16[edit]

Category:Calixa-Lavallée Award[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) 00:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A subcategory for its winners was recently deleted at CFD on WP:OCAWARD grounds -- so this is now just a single-entry WP:OCEPON issue, with no other contents left but the eponym itself. The eponym was left in the parent category alongside this, so no upmerging is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 16 June 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.

Serbia[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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale - there is no pressing reason to depart from the standard of the majority in Category:Organizations based in Serbia and Category:Organizations based in Serbia by subject. There are 25 in the Serbia tree which use 'organization' - see User:Oculi/serbia. Oculi (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fits better with the wider Organization trees.Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 20 June 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:20th century in Santa Barbara, California[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 Category:20th century in Santa Barbara, California to Category:20th century in California and Category:History of Santa Barbara, California, otherwise delete. MER-C 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This only contains one member, Royal Lichtenstein Quarter-Ring Sidewalk Circus, which only mentions that the troupe's training base moved to Santa Barbara in 1980; this does not appear to have been WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: it'll probably be helpful for closing the discussion when you react once more. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I agree with the dual merge. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duel merge per Marcocapelle. That makes the most sense, as this present category is too skimpy to justify its existence. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 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:Writers who blog[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 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blogging seems like a borderline non-defining characteristic. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposer's apology: In attempting to write an explanation of why I think the category should be kept, I seem to have erased part of this discussion or its template. I am sorry for the error and may try again later. Mitzi.humphrey 19:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, the tree of Category:Bloggers is diffused by blogging topic, which makes perfect sense. Diffusion by occupation, as seems to be the case here, is a mere matter of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since blogging is a writing format, everybody who blogs is always automatically a "writer who blogs". I do grok that the intention here was "people who already earn their paycheques as writers of books to begin with, and oh BTW also have blogs too" — but for one thing, the category name fails to actually communicate that distinction at all, and for another, we don't otherwise subcategorize bloggers by their prior non-blog occupation, we subcategorize bloggers by the subject that they blog about. So for both of these reasons this fails to be a usefully defining characteristic of bloggers for the purposes of subcategorizing them. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non-defining, and per Bearcat. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mitzi.humphrey: are you still planning to write an explanation of why the category should be kept? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought this was necessary to identify people who might be writers (or had other occupations) but also had well-known blogs. Since "well-known" is a subjective trait, it could not be used in the category name.Mitzi.humphrey 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think that occupation is unrelated to blogging. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't subcategorize bloggers by their prior occupation: we subcategorize bloggers by the subject that they blog about. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 19 June 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:Film scores by composer[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: do not rename. MER-C 08:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Film scores by composer concluded that the films are the actual entry in the category and not the film score, this parent category should be changed as well to reflect this and be consistent with other top level categories in Category:Films. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fact that the articles in the category are officially about films themselves, and that film scores rarely if ever actually have their own standalone articles as separate topics from the films that they're contained in, is not a pressing concern here. The proposed title creates the deceptive impression that the composers are the filmmakers, which they aren't — the composers are only responsible for a portion of the finished product, namely the score, not for the whole kit and caboodle. In truth, I question whether films are defined by the identities of their score composers for the purposes of warranting any such categories at all, but deleting the entire tree would be ultra vires the scope of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is a good point though I agree we need a fresh discussion for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bearcat's argument. Misleading title. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 19 June 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:Screenplays by writer[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 Films with screenplays by X. MER-C 09:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial list of categories to be renamed
Nominator's rationale: Much like the discussion regarding film scores here, the articles categorised in this tree are not about screenplays but about films. Therefore, they should start with the word "Films". This should be in the form "Films written by..." or "Films with screenplays by..." for the individuals and either "Films by [...] writers" or "Films with screenplays by [...] writers for the nationalities. --woodensuperman 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have requested a bot to tag every subcategory in the tree. --woodensuperman 15:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong oppose. (New !vote below) Many films are based on books or plays, so "Category:Films by writer" is ambiguous: it could refer either to the writer of the original work, or to the writer of the screenplay.
I suggest that Woodensuperman should withdraw this misconceived CFD nomination, and open a discussion at WT:FILM about possible options ... and only once one or more options have been clarified consider opening a mass nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had included "Films with screenplays by..." as a possibility in the nom. Could you support that option? I don't think there's a need to withdraw the nom, as all alternatives could be discussed here. --woodensuperman 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Films with screenplays by..." sounds not too bad to me, but I am not a film buff. It would be much better to have that preliminary discussion with the editors who know the topic area best before tagging ~1,000 categories with one option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Films are generally considered "by" the director, not the screenwriter. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the linked discussion to "Film scores by composer" which helped me understand the issue here. Indeed the article being placed in the category is the film, not the screenplay file, so the current scheme is incorrect here. As for the issue of writer vs book writer that a film was based on. In the US industry, writing credits are governed by the WGA, so a "written by", "screenplay by" or "story by" credit cannot be ambiguous with "based on a book writer" (no idea how other countries handle his). That has its own category tree at Category:Films based on works by writer. Looking at Category:Films, Category:Films by writer seems a correct option. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename to "Films with screenplays by..." since films are the object of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, @Newshunter12. I did comment on this suggestion on 10 May[1], and had hoped that there might have been more commentary from film buffs.
At this point, it's time to wrap this up, so I have come off the fence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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:Serfs[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: do not merge. MER-C 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Russian serfs, which doesnt need an intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents - This category can always be re-created in the future in the event that articles about non-Russian serfs are created. But at present there's no need for it. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Serfdom is a condition of debt bondage, and serfs could be legally "bought, sold, or traded". Peasants as a group also included free tenants, who could not be sold, could own land of their own, and were obligated to pay rent and taxes. When the Russian Empire abolished serfdom in 1861, it effectively abolished slavery and gave peasants the freedom of movement. It did not abolish peasantry itself. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least to Category:Serfdom (Dimadick may have a point that merging to Category:Peasants is less appropriate). Currently there is only one subcategory in it so it is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seein' a problem here, guys. Dimadick appears to be perhaps a bit confused about the outcome of merging. He/She seems to acknowledge that "peasants" is a broad term that encompasses both free & unfree labor -- which is reflected in Category:Peasants quite properly serving as the parent for Category:Serfs. All we're doing by merging is elimating Category:Serfs and making Category:Russian serfs a direct subcat of Category:Peasants (as well as making it a direct subcat of Category:Serfdom). Voila, mes amis. Ze probleme, she does not exist! Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Peasants may be free or bonded. Most serfs were peasants, but not all peasants were serfs. Their precise status will have varied with time and place. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We need a category specifically for people who were serfs, Serfdom and Peasants are too imprecise for this. As it was, this was merely a redundant category layer for Russian serfs, but serfdom was widely practiced in medieval Europe, and there are notable non-Russian serfs with WP pages. I've added one of them to the category just now. Daß Wölf 01:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the nature of serfdom varied from place to place, so I think we need country sub-categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the original rationale is no longer valid after Category:Croatian serfs has been created as another subcategory. It would probably be better when nominator would withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to withdraw. I've no objection to the category if it's populated.Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 16 June 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:Vampire: The Requiem[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) 00:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A single-article category; should be merged with the parent category for the series that Vampire: The Requiem is part of. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:25, 16 June 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:Kindred of the East[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) 00:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category only containing one article; should be merged with the parent category. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:21, 16 June 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:Hunter: The Reckoning video 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: merge per the extended proposal. MER-C 08:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is already very small, only containing a single article about the Hunter: The Reckoning tabletop game; it makes little sense to then have a sub-category for articles on the tabletop game's three video game adaptations. Should also be merged with Category:World of Darkness video games. Alexandra IDVtalk 08:13, 16 June 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:Antonovych Prize winners[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) 00:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD. The article Antonovych prize already contains a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 16 June 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_June_16&oldid=1073192133"