Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Category:Sarraut family[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 brothers in this family. Doesnt seem to warrant a category. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a large family with notable members across several generations. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2021 (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:Andean Independent Peaks higher than 5000[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. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just don't know what to do with this recently-created category. Its only parent is itself; its only child is itself; it has no text on the category page explaining its purpose. What does "Andean" mean? What is an "Independent Peak"? What does "higher than 5000" mean - is it higher than 5000 other peaks; higher than 5000 giraffes stacked up; higher than 5000 feet - what? Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2021 (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:Deaths in Alagoas[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was warned by Liz (see my talk page) about speedy deletion of Category:Disease-related deaths in Alagoas. Once it is deleted, I request deletion of the three mentioned categories, because the only article Roberto Torres (politician) was deleted under CSD G5 (block evasion of Marquis de la Eirron). Francisco (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single=purpose categories that nobody has bothered to populate. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2021 (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:Safavid governors of Bandar Abbas[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. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overly narrow category. Bandar Abbas is a single-city, not a province. We do not need categories for the leaders of each city. 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2021 (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:Footballers from Camp de Túria[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:People from Camp de Túria. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:People from Camp de Túria and Category:Footballers from the Valencian Community. WP:OVERCAT category created by user with three blocks in a month for creating such categories repeatedly. Wikipedia currently has only sixteen articles about people from this county, there is no need to make another category to spin off the two who are footballers. Librarian from Liberia (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2021 (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.

British people of colonial India[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. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:British people of colonial India to Category:British people in colonial India
  • Nominator's rationale This is a sub-cat of Category:British expatriates in India and is meant to group articles on people who were British but in India during the time of British colonial rule. They are British and so at heart of the United Kingdom, so using the of in the name of this article does not make sense. It is essentially a special case of the expatriate category, and should use the formula of the expatriate categories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
  • Support for consistency Grutness...wha? 02:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though some of these people were likely born in India, we should explain that they were members of a diaspora. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of people in expatriate categories were born in the countries they were expatriates in. People can be expatriates at birth if they have deep connections to their parents homeland, if their parents are officials of the home country, or if they return either regularly of soon after their birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Clear enough. --Just N. (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2021 (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:Derthona F.B.C. 1908 players[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. bibliomaniac15 20:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D Nehme1499 10:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty to merge the three nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 19 August 2021 (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:Wikipedia books (user books)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Category:Wikipedia books (user books)

Category:Histrionic personality disorder in fiction[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. bibliomaniac15 20:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only one article in it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it shouldn't have been depopulated. Many TV & film characters clearly have HPD, including: Scarlett O'Hara, Blanche DuBois, Regina George, Barney Stinson & Cat Valentine. It's a significant, well-defined condition which is relevant in fiction as well as real life. It is portrayed prominently in many popular films & TV shows. A university student could write a long thesis about the topic of HPD in fiction. A professional writer could write a book about it. Jim Michael (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the work of fiction defined them as having such, it's original research to diagnose characters as having this. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research if RS say that specific characters have HPD. Jim Michael (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the characters you mentioned have any RS saying they have HPD. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's untrue - there are many articles - including academic studies - which ascribe HPD to various fictional characters including those I've mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may indeed be sources out there covering the topic. A more significant question is whether the Wikipedia articles reflect this. Until recently Wikipedia's article on Nemesis (Christie novel) failed to even mention that the killer of the novel was a lesbian, that the victim was likely bisexual, or that Agatha Christie explicitly compared the case to Clytemnestra killing Agamemnon. Many Wikipedia articles pay no attention to scholarly discussions of a book or film, only covering initial reviews in the popular press. Dimadick (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - personality disorders are long-term, major conditions which affect a person's life greatly. They're defining for both real & fictional people who have them. They're not a side issue or minor point. HPD typically causes strong extroversion & it's the only personality disorder which is centred on the person's appearance, making them stand out. Even if you've never heard of HPD, if you met someone who has it, you'd quickly realise there's something unusual about them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this discussion it is irrelevant whether it impacts a person's life greatly. You are mentioning Scarlett O'Hara as a prime example, but there is in fact hardly any mention of HPD in this character's case, that is what the discussion is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources mention her as a textbook case. On Google, the first result is an NYU psychology professor saying she uses her as a prime example of HPD. Jim Michael (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the question either. The question is whether sources about Scarlett O'Hara in general (i.e. mostly book reviews and film reviews) start off with talking about HPD. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No review of a novel/film/play etc. will start by describing a character by saying that they have a condition that the large majority of people haven't heard of. That's not the standard for inclusion of a character in a cat or the existence of a cat - nor should it be. Despite it being a very prominent condition in those who have it, many famous people & fictional characters having it, most people don't know what HPD is. However, if you describe the criteria in layman's terms, most people will know what it is. Its incidence in the gen pop is most often given as 1% of men & 4% of women, making it the most common PD in women. It's well-defined & not obscure Jim Michael (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No review of a novel/film/play etc. will start by describing a character by saying that they have a condition that the large majority of people haven't heard of." That is exactly the definition of WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't say that it has to be at the start of a description. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We really should not mix pop pshycology and trying to define fictional characters. This becomes even more complex when we try to read disorders into characters at times and places when the disorder themselves was not recognized or classified, and so we are clearly reading into the character something the author did not intend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a reader of fiction, I can relate to Jim Michael's view of how fictional characters can relate to real-life conditions. Fiction is typically a mirror of reality as opposed to being entirely original. But we first have to include discussion of a topic in a main article, BEFORE we add this in a relevant category. If we would like to discuss how Dracula fits the role of a dandy or displays homoerotic attraction to male victims (arguments I have often encountered outside Wikipedia), we first have to include such sources on the character's article. If the article never mentions the elephant in the room, the category can not mention it either. Dimadick (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above discussion. Although Jim Michael is not completely wrong with his psychology the category rules are against him. I enjoyed Dimadicks reasoning about that very much! --Just N. (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (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:German former Hindus[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. bibliomaniac15 20:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each of these categories. A dual merge to Category:Former Hindus is not needed for the first two categories, both articles are already in a converts to new religion from Hinduism category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have emptied Category:Indonesian Former Hindus since the article Sandrina Malakiano does not mention anything about a possible conversion from Hinduism. Also I have removed British and English Hindus as a merge target in the nomination because Amol Rajan appears to have been atheist since the age of 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, Category:Indonesian Former Hindus has been emptied. You could just tag these for speedy deletion unless you want to set a precedence against the category being recreated. I'm not sure why you would empty a category if you want it renamed because it will just be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole tree has two articles on people who may be Hindus by descent. One has not believed in any god since the age of 15. The German singer's article says nothing of her religion, but her father appears to be an ethnic German (thus of Christian descent) and she appears to have a Christian forename. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of the particular all encompassing nature of religion, and the particular circumstances of people leaving a religion, it is misleading to categorize people who left a religion with those who remain adherents of it. If anyone wants to place Peter M. Johnson in Category:American Muslims I will oppose you as long as the day is long. Johnson is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who used to be an adherent of the Nation of Islam. He credits his membership in the Nation of Islam with teaching him how to fast, and fasting was key to his conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think in his "running to the light" video he may have also mentioned that his association with Islam as a teenager kept him out of the violent gang life then prevalent in the area of Queens he lived in. I know some might question wether we should include former members of the Nation of Islam in the category American former Muslims, but I would support such a categorization as accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you can empty the categories by proving no one belongs we have a current article we can empty them, but I will oppose any merger because it implies the categories themselves are not legitimate, which is not at all the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not claimed to be illigitimate, they are claimed to be too small. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above discussion. --Just N. (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (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/2021_August_18&oldid=1041857626"