Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:Nutritional advice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Category:Nutritional advice

Category:Rio Grande Valley[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 Category:Lower Rio Grande Valley. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:50, 25 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:Television stations in the Fort Smith–Fayetteville market[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 Category:Television stations in Northwest Arkansas. bibliomaniac15 17:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:46, 25 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:Upcoming EPs[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) 05:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like unnecessary diffusion of Category:Upcoming albums as it doesn't really accomplish anything more that what that one does. The parent serves as more of a maintenance category and there are rarely more than 100 articles in it at any one time, so it's never unwieldy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G7; Starcheer notified me shortly after I created the category that he'd nominate it for deletion if the category didn't become reasonably populated. It's clear other people haven't found the category useful, so there's really no reason to keep it. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:38, 1 September 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:Air Force One 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: rename to Category:Films about Air Force One. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alternately "Films set in Air Force One", though I think "on" is more appropriate. Rename per standard film categorization format and for clarity that the category is about films set aboard the aircraft. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title suggests that this is a film series instead of a common setting. Dimadick (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this way, some of the films are about the disappearance of Air Force One, then it is not a matter of setting. Some more films have something with Air Force One as a starting point but aren't particularly about Air Force One, hence the current category title is also not very satisfactory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I considered "Films about Air Force One", which would be my go-to, but films such as Independence Day couldn't really be said to be "about" Air Force One. My understanding is that there wasn't much of an appetite for "featuring" either, though maybe that is the best choice in a scenario like this. In any case, I think it should be "Films X Air Force One"; I'm just not sure what the best value of X is. DonIago (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Air Force One in film" – is that form deprecated these days? I think the choice is between that, the existing name, or splitting it between "films set on" & "films about". If some films meet neither of those criteria (set on/ about the plane), is the connection defining enough to categorise them this way? – Fayenatic London 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my preferred format (if a category such as this is being applied to a film, I prefer that it start with "Films"), but I'd accept that option, and I don't think it's been deprecated. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I have concerns that this would be another instance where well-meaning editors might apply it overly-broadly to cases where AFO is briefly mentioned/appears, rather than limiting it to films where AFO plays some sort of significant role. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 2 September 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.

Indian expatriate musicians in the United States[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Indian expatriate musicians in the United States to Category:Indian expatriates in the United States
  • Nominator's rationale This category only has one entry. We really do not need to divide out expatriates by every possible career choice. This is especially true in a case like this since it begs do we include everyone who is notable as a musician regarless of what they did while in the US, or only those who made notable musicical contributions in the US. A big question will be for example if we have someone who studied music for say 4 years at Juliard, but only made notable contributions to music after returning to India, do they belong here because they were in the US, or not because they were not notable as a musician while in the US?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I'd suppose that this subcat should be kept as being quite reasonable to subdivide the big parent category. Well, OTOH if not someone likes to populate it by filtering out musicians it's indeed strictly a case for applying the SMALLCAT rule. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 1 September 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:9th-century German poets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#Category:9th-century German poets

High medieval Austrian people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#High medieval Austrian people

Category:Jong Ajax templates[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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category consists solely of Template:Jong Ajax managers while both are in Category:AFC Ajax templates. Dutchy45 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've found and added another entry; these categories are standard. GiantSnowman 16:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, but do not be fooled by the 'Jong' - they are senior teams that play in the Dutch national division, so would be similar to e.g. Category:Sparta Rotterdam templates. GiantSnowman 07:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware, thanks. What's your point? Why should every other Eerste Divisie team have them but not Jong Ajax? GiantSnowman 10:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that nominator's point is that it is a single club so it can suffice with a single template category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GiantSnowman is'nt wrong: Why should every other Eerste Divisie team have them but not Jong Ajax? --Just N. (talk) 20:18, 1 September 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:Indian yoga gurus[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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, unclear distinction versus its parent category. Similarly Category:Gurus redirects to Category:Spiritual teachers. And for example the article T. K. V. Desikachar which is in the nominated category says outright that he is a yoga teacher. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some knowledge is needed for this kind of decision. It is not the case that all yoga gurus are spiritual; nor that being a teacher is the same as being a guru; nor that being a teacher prevents one from being a guru. It is true that the modern meaning of guru is different from the medieval meaning, so care is required.
Firstly the term "yoga guru" is (very) well-established, and it certainly denotes a much more restricted group than the common "yoga teacher", which just means someone with a certificate to teach postural yoga. Of course, every postural yoga guru is also a yoga teacher, so the statement about Desikachar demonstrates exactly nothing.
Secondly I note that "guru of modern yoga" implies a mass following; whether the spiritual variety, where the following is usually in India, and in the millions, or the physical variety, where the following is worldwide, and in the (tens or hundreds of) millions. Perhaps therefore we'd be best to begin with an article on "modern yoga gurus" (see e.g. Gurus of Modern Yoga by Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg, OUP 2014 – it covers 15 yoga gurus, a large part of the total number) and add a category for that. It might be more defensible to have categories for "modern Indian postural yoga gurus" (for which a fully-cited list is already defined here on Wikipedia), and perhaps "modern Indian spiritual yoga gurus". Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is another - clearer - distinction to be made, feel free to create a subcategory for that. That should not affect the proposed merge though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Main problem indeed: how to distinguish those two? Any not subjective criteria available? OTOH I can see that that both are not just the same to be merged. Difficult. --Just N. (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:41, 25 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:NBA Jam[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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to fit names of similar categories DemonStalker (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, if 'videao games' would be added you'd see the field at first sight. A small advantage. But as Marco pointed out: it is not really needed. --Just N. (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Name addition is not necessary. Or at least nominator didn't demonstrate it to be any necessary. --Just N. (talk) 20:28, 1 September 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:Video games based on films based on video games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 2#Category:Video games based on films based on video games

Category:People with voice disorders[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. The contents have been listified at Spasmodic dysphonia. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category that is incidental (if not entirely trivial) to reasons that made the subjects notable, per WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING. Note also the previously deleted category People with spasmodic dysphonia. Making a more general non-defining category isn't an improvement, lest we eventually create something like "Category:People with voices" --Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit I have a special hate of all voice disorder rhetoric. I once had a speech-language pathologist tell me that speaking in a way that was not fully proper and easily understood by others was like choosing to smoke. That was 25 years ago and I am still enraged at someone claiming that my speaking which was an outgrowth of phisological factors such as the amount of saliva in my mouth, my natural voice range, and maybe in some sense a result of my Autism, was somehow equivalent to smoking which in almost all cases is an addiction began by willfully choosing to proactively do something. It may have been even more offensive because as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I see smoking as willful rebellion against God's will and sinful, while I do not see stuttering, let alone my own problems of sometimes speaking less than distrinctly, sometime speaking in too high a range that others see as whining, and as a teenager my tendency to say "Ox-ford" instead of the preferred "oxferd" and some related issues of over enunciation as in any way a sign of sin. The analogy was down right non-sensical, horrible, and totally insensitive to people who have voice problems which often have phisiological sources, and it makes me to this day dislike the whole Speech-language pathologist profession and distrust to classification of people by voice disorder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the current members of the category are now listed at Spasmodic dysphonia#Notable cases, except Aleesha Rome for whom I can't find an independent source. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 1 September 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_25&oldid=1073192825"