Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Glavatičevo[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redundant - contents same as Category:Upper Neretva Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - actually Category:Upper Neretva is intended to cover significantly broader range of topics, as it covers significantly larger space, physically and administratively (it stretches across to main Bosnian administrative entities - Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina); second point is that category (both of them, actually) has more potential than it looks at this point, as it covers settlement Glavatičevo and its adjacent geographical area which holds significant potential as tourist destination and it's a place of outstanding cultural and historical significance, which is best represented with a location of one of only three Bosnian heritage sites included into UNESCO list of protected sites - which all point to a possibility of much more articles on various individual subjects in the future. I also suspect that some articles are still not categorized under Glavatičevo and should have been, and that surprise me - both cats are in need of some care, and I will invest few minutes to sort them out and make them work better. Thanks, take care.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete, now per WP:NONDEF, the articles that were added are not primarily about this village. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the articles added are about this village and surrounding area. Thera articles on other villages which are actually hamlets of Glavatičevo (Glavatičevo isn't just a village, it's a wider area surrounding village which was municipality until few decades ago, or at least until mid-20th century). However, let's articles speak for themselves, even some of the titles have Glavatićevo in it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt about it, but that doesn't mean articles in question shouldn't be categorized under Glavatičevo (as long as the category exist), because those villages are hamlets of Glavatičevo (only Glavatičevo has its own postal code, for instance), which is, as an areal, significant historical župa, culturally important for entire country (UNESCO), with more than a few important natural features - I alone intend to extend on one and create additional three articles on these Glavatčevo features.--౪ Santa ౪99° 09:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Glavatičevo should have its own category as per comments by Santasa99. --Mhare (talk) 17:45, 2 December 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:New Zealand air marshals[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshals is useful because it lists those who held one of the air marshal ranks in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. In contrast, this category is not. This category is a subcategory of Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel but lists people born in New Zealand but who attained air marshal rank in the RAF or another air force. The purpose of the category is confused and appears to create an intersection between two separate characteristics. Greenshed (talk) 18:47, 19 November 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:American politicians of Mexican descent[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Henry2378: for what reason? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: There is no need for a category for a separate category for Mexican-American politicians. --Henry2378 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose appears to easily meet WP:CATDEF, and based on the number of pages eligible for the category it is more useful to have a separate category than to simply lump them into the larger category. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS; another "descent" category. There is no indication that American politicians of Mexican descent (however defined) do anything differently than those who are not of Mexican descent. Moreover, there is no definition (objectively defined) about how much of Mexican descent one has to be (is this a one drop rule), and what reliable sources show that someone is at least that much. As all the fuss about Elizabeth Warren's claimed few percent of Native American heritage shows she identifies and is characterized by her detractors as important but no one can identify anything she has done differently than others. Apart from these obvious problems these sorts of categories have, they do contrary to the spirit of WP:OCEGRS, ghettoize these folks projecting on each of them some agenda or behavior based on their "descent" (if the behavior is not based on this, it's not proper). Such have led to pejoratives such as Trump's calling Warren "Pocahontas", Senator Hollings calling Senator Metzenbaum the "Senator from Bnai Brith". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a trivial intersection. Descent and occupation are entirely unrelated. Also nominate the sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is not a trivial intersection. It is clear that getting the Hispanic vote is a major issue in American politics, so that the ethnicity of the politician (by heritage or descent) is highly relevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that any vote counts, but that does not imply that Republic politicians of Mexican descent are other sorts of politicians than Republican politicians of German decent, or that Democratic politicians of Mexican descent are other sorts of politicians than Democratic politicians of German decent. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an important category that needs to be kept. Nnnou2 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 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:Bohemian chemists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 entries. Bohemia at the relevant times was not an independent state. It was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. But it was still Czech. Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 19 November 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:Nintendo locations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DEFINING generally
The 3 articles in this category are defined by Nintendo but I'm not sure if the "locations" subcategory is viable given the diversity of contents:
1- Nintendo New York: Their flagship retail store
2- Shigureden: A poetry museum financially supported by Nintendo that uses some Nintendo technology.
3- Super Nintendo World: A licensed section of theme parks planned by Universal Studios.
Note that I already removed Montreal Aquarium, which Nintendo bought temporary naming rights to, from the category due to WP:SHAREDNAME. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge And it sounds like a category about fictional locations from their games. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:04, 20 November 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:Smallpox survivors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and maybe WP:PERFCAT
We have a category for Category:Deaths from smallpox so this is for people that survived smallpox. The very prominent biographies in this category tend to be well written and detailed and mention that they had smallpox as a child and to say to what extent it scarred their faces. Mary, Queen of Scots still had a good complexion, George Washington was so so, and Joseph Stalin had his photos retouched to hide the scarring. (I swear I'm not making this up.) A few others mention more serious health impacts but, even if smallpox was the most serious, this had to be one of many diseases each person typically had prior to vaccines. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, generally I can't imagine a disease survivors category that would be worth keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polio. But for many polio changed their life in a way that I dont think smallpox did. Rathfelder (talk) 09:04, 19 November 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:2115[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, except no consensus on Category:2115 films. It could be re-nominated for a more focused discussion.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category tree contains a total of one article, 100 Years (film). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator that these categories do not aid navigation. Delete all. Note that the article is still in Category:Upcoming films. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2115 films, there is no problem with keeping at least this one, as the film is actually scheduled for release in 2115 and that fulfills the criteria for a film category (per Category:2024 films and others). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cognac is only a tie-in, the film itself is a stand along film by Malkovich and Rodriquez, two major film figures, and has nothing to do with the cognac. Would be as if a new film by Lillian Gish and D. W. Griffith were set to premier next week. The location of the premier has been set, that's all, and then the film will be presented in other locations and formats. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article said they "teamed" with Louis XIII (cognac) which I take to mean sponsorship and it is being aged for 100 years like their finest cognac. That's more than a tie-in; that seems like the whole point. Clearly they also had some fun here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your point above about the category 2015 short films wouldn't fit, as it states "This category is for short films released in the year 2015" (so maybe category: 2115 short films would work). Yes, there is an enhanced tie-in, kind of like there is usually a tie-in of children's animated films and toys from McDonald's. But it is also a film by an honored director and actor, and has a release date-certain. Many films include product placement sponsorship, and this film apparently has nothing to do with the cognac itself other than using a title which can be taken as a reference to 100 years, and the completed film is stored at the company before its release (films have to be stored somewhere, and Louis XIII offered a time-released vault). Sponsorship of an unrelated-topic film just means it has corporate backing, with Louis XIII acting as a film producer. If the film is about the cognac then that's an animal of a different color, but apparently the film's subject matter has nothing to do with the company other than the use of a title which can be taken as a reference to the age but in reality is a reference to the future as portrayed in the film. Film students in 2115 will have an interest in seeing a new Malkovich film, and since it's in a time-release container in anticipation of its premier, the film is safely tucked away until its release date. Since Malkovich and Rodriquez are professionals, the finished film is likely well made and taken seriously by the principal actor and director. Is there an Oscar in their future? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your analysis, I reread WP:CRYSTALBALL which makes me less sure since there are concrete plans for the release so I'll defer to others on the film category. The rest of the category structure doesn't serve a purpose for the next 90 years or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the film is set for release in 2115, and is listed in the proper category. Not sure what you mean that a science-fiction writer (actor John Malkovich wrote the film, and he is not known as a science-fiction writer) chose a "wholly random" year, and not clear in what context any of what you state pertains to as regards this nomination and film premier. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 22 November 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_November_19&oldid=992966060"