Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Category:Films about families[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this supposed to be for films that cover the concept of family (e.g. relationships), or individual named families (real or fictional)? If the former, it should be renamed. If the latter, major purging would seem to be in order (it seems a tricky distinction to make though). Paul_012 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems fairly clear from the content that the intention of the category is indeed films about "individual named families (real or fictional)", & this seems an acceptable category. The proposed rename would cast the net even wider - too much so, imo. Yes, some purging is probably needed, for example Little Women (2019 film) is in too many subcats. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, films about families is an extremely broad and indiscriminate characteristic. Perhaps we should consider deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simple wording can lead to confusion... I believe many readers will find differences between "Films about Families" (Roots or The Roosevelts); "Films about Family" (educational films about family life in general); and even "Family Films" (sometimes called Children's film). Naming is tough!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is indeed about specific families, not family as a social concept. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator): As mentioned above, for fictional families the distinction seems really unclear. Maybe this should be renamed to Category:Films about real-life families and purged instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems awkward and clumsy, but I don't have a better idea either... I think we need some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film (or maybe everyone but me in this discussion is a regular there and I should butt out!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a "film about" category: what objective measure says how much about the subject must the film be; and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. This is a particularly egregious one of the genre, since a vast number (maybe most, maybe nearly all) of films have some familial relationships as part of the plot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2020 (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:St. Edward's Hilltoppers football[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The football team at St. Edward's University was last known as the Crusaders before the team folded after the 1939 season. The "Hilltoppers" moniker did not come into usage at the school in 1947. The football team was also known as the Saints and Tigers prior to being renamed the Crusaders. See also St. Edward's Crusaders football, an article I have just created. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (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:Echinoderms by location[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better match to contents and consistency with e.g. Category:Invertebrates by continent. DexDor (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content, after I moved three articles that were directly in this category to the appropriate continent subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To match the actual content. 19:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Destroyed landmarks by country

Category:Dishonoured statues[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: there seems to be a consensus that the category should not be deleted, and there is consensus that the current name should change, but there is no consensus on what it should be renamed to. Since there is consensus that the current name is inappropriate, I will move this to Category:Removed statues. This is without prejudice to a fresh nomination for renaming to a different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category lacks objective criteria. What is "dishonouring"? Covering it with tar and setting it on fire? Moving it to a new location? Putting it in storage? Spitting on it? Allowing it to weather away?

Why statues? Does that include the bas-relief on Stone Mountain or the sculptures on Mount Rushmore? Are paintings "dishonoured" when they are moved, put in storage or painted over? Is editing a movie "dishonouring" it? SummerPhDv2.0 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the criteria are described in the header. The talkpage has invitations for improvements, including improvements on the scope. This also answers some questions in the nom.
Also, this post gives me a first impression of "I don't understand it", instead of "Not a good idea, for these considerations: ...". -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Dishonoured" is an inherently vague, POV term. In Philadelphia, the Frank Rizzo statue was regularly spat on and vandalized with labels like "Racist". To many, that would be "dishonouring". The talk page discussion is looking for something "permanent". Now the statue is in storage. Is that dishonoring? Maybe, maybe not: artworks are regularly put in storage for any number of reasons. Is it permanent? Probably not. While there is plenty of room between putting it atop City Hall and melting it down to make a public toilet, there is no clear line for "dishonoured". What are the objective inclusion criteria? There certainly aren't any included that I can find, and I can't dream up another term to convey whatever the category is intended to say. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no to all of this. All of your points are just questions again, not arguments. I repeat: go to the talkpage. There is a diff between I don't understand this and CfD. Why do you not simply propose improvements? -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, treated as such in my reply. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if renamed to Category:Removed statues to align with its subcategory, and purge any statues from the category that are still or again in place. Definitely do not keep the category under its current name, as too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Removed" would eliminate the "political protest" (or 'dishounouring') aspect, which IMO is essential here. See also my reply. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is closest to my reply. :-) -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, name needs work. Is it to be just statues pulled down by the populace, for example, the statue of Sadam Hussein. What about the statue of Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scout movement but a fan of the Hitler Youth – removed from public display pending review yesterday. [11 June 2020] There have been two or three similar examples in London, with similar unsavoury pasts, that have been taken out of streets. Maybe they belong in art galleries or museums but do not merit the status of national hero! --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
  • Strong rename "Dishonoured" is very subjective and POV and would need to be deleted if there wasn't an available alternative. Would prefer "Demolished or removed statutes" to just "Removed statues." SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I describe in my reply, "dishonoured" is nicely the opposite of "honouring" by erecting a statue, and intentionally has the 'political reasons' in it too. Also, qualification is by RS as always, not by POV. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dishonoured is a loaded NPOV term and arguably not defining. It's exceptionally unclear, implies that the original statue was an honour, and further implies someone took an action to slight that honour. That's how I read it at first and I'm not the only one here who thinks that based on the discussion. There's no reason why we can't have a removed statue category though and that would be defining, but this is an overreach. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that subjective (POV?) IMO. Politcal protest is well-sourced (RS) to be included in the article, this being Wikipedia. See also my reply. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Monuments and memorials removed for political reasons. This would be a more appropriate parent category to Category:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials – "[...] monuments and memorials" doesn't come under "statues'; it's the other way around. "Dishonoured" is POV, and considering the British spelling is not very idiomatic in British English. Twelve Responses to Tragedy doesn't fit in the category as it currently is if its scope is statues. If it were just "removed and destroyed", without the "political reasons", something like Poets' Fountain would be within its scope, which I think would be diluting it somewhat. Limiting the scope to works which have actually been removed would be better than having a category for public monuments under a cloud, which could potentially expand to infinite size. Ham II (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ok with that, though I still prefer "statues", or "sculptures". Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Monuments" would already include "memorials", innit? Wouldn't just "Monuments" cover all nicely though? Worth considering. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it does not help a lot to restrict this to political motives, because there is no political motives tree which we can make this category part of. I would rather propose to include removals and destroyals for any reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It fits into the iconclasm tree. Including ones "for any reason" makes the category too vague and broad. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the wp article Iconoclasm does cover removals of statues for political motives as well, I expect in real life the term "iconoclasm" is hardly ever used in a secular (non-religious) context. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand how this requirement of some parent category could force us into/away from any category name. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Destroyed statues. Statues have no honor to defend or to remove. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intent here seems to be statues that were vandalized or destroyed for political reasons but that has been going on for a long time: File:Johannes Adam Simon Oertel Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, N.Y.C. ca. 1859.jpg and seems too vague. (Favor renaming over keeping current name if no consensus to delete.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it has been going on a long time, but how is that a reason for deletion? In fact statues with articles are heavily concentrated on recent removals. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff the scope is narrowed and the category is renamed. Maybe something like Category:Statue iconoclasm or Category:Iconoclastic statue removals. gobonobo + c 04:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Removed or destroyed statues per User:Verne Equinox. First "dishonored" is undefinable; if someone urinates on it, puts graffiti on it, puts a mask on it (as done recently) is is "dishonored"? Does it matter why each of those is done? We cannot fathom the motives of usually anonymous actors. Hence, those items based on "political reasons" are probably subject to analysis, re-analysis, and what is political compared to good for one's image, "good for business", or just anger or not willing to spend the money to defend it? Those statues removed or destroyed keeps it simple and unbiased. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think "political reasons" is not editor-subjective; those incidents having it made into a wikipedia article are well-sourced (by RS) by definition. This category is just using that, it does not redefine or re-interpret the article (which indeed would be POV). The example "if someone urinates on it" by itself does not qualify because of this (and it is not "permanently" btw, now a requirement). However, if "politician Z urinates on statue" makes the papers, and from there a Wikipedia article, inclusion in this category is correct, not POV, and to the point. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider renaming. (I created this category).
- First, the existence of this category, exact naming aside, is encyclopedically relevant. Roughly, it is the the intersection of 'statue', 'removed' and 'political reason'. From here, IMO, the next question is a better naming/definition. Not even by the nom, who proposed deletion in boldface, I have found an argument the concept being unacceptable for the encyclopedia [incorrect; DP]. Above, I have read just one argument against the existence itself (~ 'not a new issue so delete' ?). [added late: my mistake, Rathfelder did make a sound argument for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC) ][reply]
- In my opinion difficulty of wording, when the difficulty is only in the exact bordering of a word's meaning, this does not qualify for deletion; improvement and clarification (for example in the category page introduction) should solve it.
- Widening the category to "removed" would include all statues removed for other reasons (i.e., reason for removal is not used at all). But that is missing the point for the relevant intersection. I reject this idea.
- About 'Statues': I initially used this word becasue it is well-defined overall. We could include other memorials, I think there should be some explicit "act of honouring" attached to it. When even more widened to "statues ... and symbols", the definition has no borders any more and would make the category less useful (example: this was not erected in honour but is an 'symbol'; should any (theoretical) protests make for inclusion?). This way, I support including 'monuments' in this category, and so in the naming.
- About '(permanently) dishonoured': I choose this wordt because it is exactly the opposite for the act of erecting the statue: honouring. The dishounouring can be removal-by-protest, but it also includes explicit statements such as this or decapitating the statue: turning around the "honour". I don't see why this is POV. There are enough reliable sources that describe a protest as a protest. Sure this question can rise with all political or social activities, but as long as we use guidelines as WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE these doubts can be resolved. For Wikipedia such a strive for NPOV in subtle issues is nothing new, and is not reason to eliminate a questioned concept like '(dis)honoured' and even extreme wordings like WP:TERRORIST. In the detailing I have refined the description into "permanently dishounoured", so as to keep out any paint-thrown event. (However, maybe the restriction 'permanently' might be thrown out when/since only full articles about statues would be included? If the statue has its own article, it might be included then for being 'temporally' dishonoured. this Churchill statue for example. More considerations?). All in all: I prefer to keep the word "dishonour" in the definition; claims that it is POV is missing the power of our reliable sourcing etc. policies. My secondary preferrence is "political protest" (before "political reason").
- So I conclude and primarily propose to move=rename this category into:
Category:Monuments and memorials dishonoured for political reasons.
-DePiep (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — 11:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, the only thing everyone else here agrees on is that "dishonoured" is a completely useless word in a category name. Perhaps this is more obvious to native speakers. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:, "useless" or just wrong? Anyway, I count four editors who propose to remove this criterium wholesale (no "dishonoured/political motive" at all). Which removes the essence, and I cannot count that as issues with this word itself. Limiting all to "removed for political reason" (as you do) might work, but excludes this Leopold II example, which to me would be very a usefull inclusion. Some argued that it is POV, while I think that our RS-policy prevents that, starting in the article itself (btw, isn't this same POV-argument working for "political reasons"?). Finally, I tried to explain that dishonouring is the exact opposit of "honouring [by erecting a statue]". Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Note: I do not understand the reasoning that "there is no parent cat available for this concept, so ..." could force us into a category name. If everything fails, could Category:Rebellions serve the purpose? -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Discovered above: the proposal by User:Ham II above is worth considering: use "Category:Monuments ...". -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If statues have been "dishonoured" but not removed it is barely a defining characteristic, that is why I still think that Category:Removed statues is the best solution (and purging statues that have not been removed). The fact that they have been "dishonoured" is of course interesting to mention in the articles but not a basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)CfD[reply]
No, not just each and every "removal". This line of arguing, Marcocapelle, again omits the encyclopedic reason for inclusion: "political reasons". I oppose any outcome of this CfD that omits this point. -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Marcocapelle, but would include destroyed with removed as somethings are left destroyed. The reasons are unfathomable; if done by the legislature (town or larger), they may be ascribed to "political reasons", but not necessarily as governments often remove statues because the cost of defending a lawsuit over whether the statue may remain isn't worth it. Some may ascribe to that an inherent "political reason", but then the banality of such "political reasons" makes it non-defining. And one can never really ascribe motives to anonymous actors with any certainty and the speculation of reliable sources is still just speculation. Any of the recent statues torn down during the protests/riots in the US may be ascribed to "political reasons" but that proves too much. For those who are convinced that there is group hell-bent on white supremacy, one could claim that the various people whose deaths are being protested were killed for "political reasons" too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2020 (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:Bedouins[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, but category Category:Bedouin could be created or a new nomination to rename Category:Bedouin society could follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move to match the title of our article Bedouin. The word is already a plural (the singular is badawi) and does not require an "s" to make it more so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename - In most English usage, "Bedouin" seems to be used as an adjective, singular noun and group noun. "Bedouins" is commonly used as plural including in the article, Bedouin. Category names seem to favor plurals (e.g. Category:American people, Category:Indian capital cities). This being the English Wikipedia, category titles should follow English usage. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:19, 11 June 2020 (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:Echinoderms of Chile[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These 2 categories contain just one article and we are generally moving away from categorizing organisms (especially marine organisms) by country as it leads to large numbers of non-defining categories on some articles. DexDor (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge categories - A category with one member is not useful in any way. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in line with many previous mergers of organism categories from country to region or continent level. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2020 (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.

American racing drivers 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: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: And also any appropriate subcats under hierarchies like Category:American racing drivers by state. Sports biography categories are not divided by century, even for events like boxing or archery that are millennia old, so this is not useful for navigation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, categorizing people by occupation and century is not meaningful for a modern occupation like racing driver. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:50, 12 June 2020 (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/2020_June_11&oldid=969739275"