Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8[edit]

Category:Movies that use internet memes[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) 05:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Is this even needed? Memes aren't nearly that important to a film's plot, so this just seems superfluous. Also, the category only has three pages, all edited by the same user who created the category. TheVHSArtist (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete per nom, or rescope to "Movies about internet memes" - if there even are any. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scope doesn't seem broad enough even in the unlikely case the category is important enough to have around. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also comment: perhaps this should be addressed in a separate discussion but I don't think their other meme-related category creation (Category:Companies that use internet memes) is worth keeping either, for similar scope and relevance reasons (it will either, like the movie one, be limited in scope or else it will be too broad and not terribly useful). - Purplewowies (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all it uses the term "movies", while the main article is film. Which makes this a misnamed category. Secondly, the articles themselves do not seem to discuss any memes. Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dimadick --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 13 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:Korean adoptees[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:South Korean adoptees. At the moment all of the articles in the category are from South Korea. No prejudice against future recreation. bibliomaniac15 19:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both category consists of adoptees from South Korea, and Category:Korean adoptees has the lesser number of pages than the Category:South Korean adoptees. Since its known that most of the adoptees are from South Korea, the Category:Korean adoptees is unnecessary. Toadboy123 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (PST)
  • Comment, a few articles do not explicitly mention "South". Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "its known that most of the adoptees" The operative word is "most". That means that there are people in this category who are not South Koreans. Dimadick (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mentioned the word "most". I checked the articles in the category and it seems all of the people within the category are from South Korea. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2021 (PST)
  • Support -- It is unlikely we will get articles on pre-Korean War adoptees or North Korean ones. If we do we can re-create appropriate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 12 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.

Template:South Africa-reli-bio-stub[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) 05:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Malformed and unused duplicate of {{SouthAfrica-reli-bio-stub}} PamD 21:02, 8 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.

Template:Something-stub[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: speedy delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently a test edit. PamD 20:58, 8 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.

Template:Palestinian Authority-stub[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) 05:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused and malformed; no obvious alternative stub template. There seem to be no stub categories within Category:Palestinian National Authority. PamD 20:48, 8 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:FAW Group joint ventures[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: upmerge. bibliomaniac15 19:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT

This category is unlikely to ever have more than three entries, and said three entries are already covered in FAW Group No coffee, please. (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with SMALLCAT, but merge to parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 16 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.

Template:1990s-American-country-song-stub[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) 05:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard and unused: there are no national stub templates under Category:Country song stubs. PamD 19:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Given that country music is a predominantly American genre, I doubt this would help navigation in any big way, especially since the usual split for the parent category is by year rather than by nationality. Grutness...wha? 03:14, 9 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:Opposition to Islam by continent[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. The opposition failed to adequately address major concerns regarding the current names of these categories, particularly: the naming conventions of the parent category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which itself was renamed from Category:Opposition to Islam, and of the subcategories in Category:Antireligion; the non-existence of Category:Opposition to religion; and the overly vague term "opposition" being used. ✗plicit 09:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

i) These categories are sub-categories of Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment and should be named like the parent category

ii) These categories are sub-categories of Category:Anti-Islam_sentiment but "Opposition to Islam" is a wider term than anti-islam sentiment, so the ordering is incorrect

iii) "Opposition to Islam" is a vague term, Anti-Islam sentiment is not

iv) Almost all pages under the "Opposition to Islam" category are actually pages related to islamophobia and thus "Anti-Islam sentiment" is better fitting

v) Uniformity with Category:Opposition_to_Christianity_in_Europe which redirects to Category:Anti-Christian_sentiment_in_Europe

This merge should also apply to all sub-categories, I don't think I need to propose a new discussion for all right? EDIT: Added the missing categories above, still need tagging. -- Mvbaron (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment, a new discussion is not needed for the subcategories, but they should be listed here as well and the category pages should be tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! How do I tag all subcategories? Mvbaron (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree that it is a more general term. Opposition to Islam and Islamophobia are both part of anti-Islam sentiment. Though the word "sentiment" is perhaps not the best word, maybe simply "Anti-Islam" suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of things to differentiate here: First, opposition to Islam _is_ the wider category and that’s exactly the problem: not because it encompasses multiple islamophobic categories (opposition to “Islamic migration” whatever that is), but because it is vague between islamophobia/anti-Islam sentiment/hate and actual _criticism_ of Islam (e.g. inner-Islamic criticism, reformist tendencies, different movements or critics).
Second (and that’s a consequence of said vagueness), the very category we have now even links to the article islamophobia - so that’s even more reason to rename this category to anti-Islam (sentiment) and make a _further_ category like Category:Criticism of Islam which doesn’t conflate between islamophobia and valid criticism of the religion/practices.
Third, almost all pages within the current category are right-wing parties so it makes even more sense to identify _this_ category with anti-Islam sentiment. Mvbaron (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: in fact, upon re-reading the categories, I see that it currently is Criticism of Islam > Anti-Islam sentiment > Opposition to Islam by continent, which makes even less sense because it goes wide > narrow > wide category... Mvbaron (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of Islam should be part of Anti-Islam. Criticism of Islam is the rational component of Anti-Islam, while Islamophobia is the emotional component. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just malarky. That second word is a word used by the likes of the SPLC and other fraud organizations to delegitimaize those they disagree with politically and try to exclude them from polite society and funding schemes without any actual or true analysis of content. It is one of the misused fighting words that lead to the killings of a security gaurd at a location that the SPLC had without and good cause smeered with its "hate organzation" moniker. The word has nothing to do with the content of what people say, and everything to do with trying to deligitimize some views, it should not have any place in an encyclopedia that seeks to advance a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- One can be opposed to Islam without being an islamophobe -- that is without being afraid of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, that’s exactly why I want to rename it! the parent category is already anti-Islam sentiment, and all the pages related to “opposition to Islam without being an Islamophobe” are located at category:Criticism of Islam. You vote keep but your argument is actually in favor of rename… Mvbaron (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you are using such a POV-pushing word as if it has any value other than defaming and attacking those who have concerns about the actions and politcies of radical Islamists and their political goals makes me not trust your motives for this nomination at all. The way you use that awful word makes this nomination reek of trying to impose a particular point of view on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like you to strike your personal attack and your assuming of bad faith. My nomination is _solely_ based on the logic that the parent category already is called "anti-islam sentiment" and the child category is not... Mvbaron (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are the one who chose to invoke the loaded political word. I know the uses of that word, and will oppose it and anything that tends to treat it as anything other than the hateful attack word designed to deligitimaiZe some people that it is. You are the one who is using that politically motivated hate term in your nomination, and I will call you out for using that term. Use of that term always has ill intent. I am not assuming bad faith, you created it by using a term meant to deligitimize, marginalize and deny a political voice to certain people and their views in your nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What term even? I have no idea what your talking about. I reiterate that I would like you to retract your accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. I have no ill intent in filing a rename for a category that is illogically sorted. The category in question is already a subcategory and links to “islamophobia”, there’s nothing mysterious going on, I think what you want is to rename the parent category not oppose this. Please strike your personal attacks. Mvbaron (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That term is inherently bad faith. It was dreamed up by regimes that physically persecute people for leaving Islam, heavily persecute Ahmadis and Bahai's, and we should not use it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What term are you talking about? “Anti-islam sentiment?” That surely was not invented by anyone… And I will only repeat myself one more time: please strike your accusations of bad faith and personal attacks, or I will report you. Mvbaron (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current name is the most non-point of view pushing name we can come up with. It is much more NPOV than the proposed target and as such is a much better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per Mvbaron. Also "Opposition to Islam" is too vague, as it lumps together hardcore murder-advocating Islamophobes with those who merely disagree with Islamic teachings. Most ex-Muslims and Christian missionaries can be considered "opposed to Islam" in some way.VR talk 20:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to make additional points - one can not be "opposed to Islam and not being Islamophobe" because one simply can not be "opponent/opposed" of/to Islam, period! (It is also an euphemism for the "Anti-Islam sentiment", used on our project since rename sometime around 2011.) One can be a "Critics of Islam", which is absolutely rational discipline and endeavor. Or, one can be "opposed" to Islam, and like as any opposition is antagonistic and which means involves emotions/sentiments, for which it is irrational attitude toward this religion. So, opposition is not critic(ism), David Duke is not critics of Judaism, Jewish culture and way of life, nor Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are critics of Islam and Muslim culture!--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the top category is called, "criticism of Islam" must have a place somewhere in the tree. So I am not sure how this comment has any impact on the renaming discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To reply on your first sentence statement, "Criticism of Islam" is part of "Criticism of religion" and "Islam-related controversies", which is the case with all other criticisms of foo ("Criticism of Judaism, Christianity"). As for your second - my comment is reply to Johnpack Lambert's and Peterkingiron's principal argument that "opposition" equals "critique"--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have an opinion on the result. I just thought I would note a couple things. Anti-Islam sentiment used to redirect to Criticism of Islam until Jan of 2021, when it was changed to redirect to Islamophobia. And noting that, I think that that may be the crux of the debate on this so far. Is a category named "...Opposition_to..." more applicable to one or the other, or to neither? Maybe a split (and cleanup) of some kind, is a solution. If, as some have suggested, "...Opposition to...", is too vague, then maybe WP:TNT is the answer, and we should start over with more accurate categorisation of the articles. I dunno. As I said, I don't have an opinion on the result, but I thought maybe this might help hone the discussion a bit. I hope this helps : ) - jc37 15:55, 21 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:Specific Polish letters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#Category:Specific Polish letters

Category:Direct effect of European Union law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#Category:Direct effect of European Union law

Category:Dentist[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOTFACEBOOK, See also Category:Baglan Shansharov Kleuske (talk) 09:15, 8 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.

Template:Southafrica-musician-stub[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) 05:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Malformed duplicate of {{SouthAfrica-musician-stub}}, not used in any articles PamD 07:25, 8 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.

Template:Sri Lankan-dancer-stub[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) 05:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Malformed (would be "SriLanka-..."), not used in any articles, and not part of an existing hierarchy - Category:Dance biographical stubs has no nationality child templates. PamD 07:23, 8 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.

Template:UK-Viscount-stub[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) 05:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Malformed duplicate of {{UK-viscount-stub}}, not used in any articles. PamD 07:17, 8 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.

Template:Zambian-politician-stub[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) 05:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Malformed duplicate of {{Zambia-politician-stub}}, not used in any articles. PamD 07:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would have put this at TfD, but Twinkle wouldn't let me and said that stub templates had to come here to CfD. PamD 07:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @PamD: stub templates and categories used to be dealt with separately on a specific stub-type discussion page (SfD), but that was eventually deleted. Since stub categories and templates are inextricably linked and categories are more likely to need deletion, they're now dealt with together here at CfD. Grutness...wha? 12:26, 8 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:History of Disney[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:History of The Walt Disney Company. bibliomaniac15 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To better match article titles like The Walt Disney Company and Timeline of The Walt Disney Company. Trivialist (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is a bit too vague. "Disney" is often use to refer to the Walt Disney Animation Studios, because this subsidiary has a wider reputation. It can also be confused with the Disney family, which included both of the company's founders and a few of its former executives. Disney has long ceased to be family business. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the "The Walt Disney Company" articles --Lenticel (talk) 04:56, 13 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:Albums produced by The Glimmer Twins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#Category:Albums produced by The Glimmer Twins

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_8&oldid=1051235610"