Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2[edit]

Category:West Prussia[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 East/West Prussia. The reverse merge is based on East Prussia and West Prussia. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, West Prussia is the province of West Prussia. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added and tagged the East Prussian categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, particularly for East Prussia which can refer to the general region, not just the historical Prussian province. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does general region mean? The region was called Prussia in the 17th century, was called province of East Prussia in the 19th century and is not called anything in particular in the 21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:16, 2 August 2022 (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:Generalbezirk Litauen[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: weak kepp. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category that does not have its own scope or purpose. Generalbezirk Litauen existed during WWII as a German administrative subdivision in mostly present-day Lithuania. The category contains some cities and towns -- belonging to a temporary short-lived war-time admin jurisdiction is not a defining characteristic of any of these cities/towns. The category also contains WWII events and personnel which is essentially a duplicative of other categories in Category:Lithuania in World War II. Renata•3 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should not categorize cities and towns by every jurisdiction they have ever been part of. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the point about cities and towns not necessarily being included is well taken, they could be removed without deleting the category. However, I believe there is still value in gathering in one site articles pertaining to personalities, war-related events and holocaust-related activities that occurred there and are separately categorized elsewhere. The fact that the entity was short-lived is not relevant to its significance. This is not substantially different from other existing categories relating to WWII governmental entities, such as the General Government or the Italian Social Republic. Thank you.Historybuff0105 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be a fair point, so let us at least remove cities and towns from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 2 August 2022 (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:Economic history of the Soviet Union[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Economic history of the Soviet Union

Category:Manukau City Centre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Manukau City Centre

Category:Defunct magazines published in the Soviet Union[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, all categories almost exclusively contain articles about defunct magazines and media, there is no benefit in keeping defunct items apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because it would not be good to put the defunct publications under a category without a reference to their defunct status. So keep them both due to the fact that there are also some publications which are still in circulation.--Egeymi (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. JBchrch talk 14:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think we have gone too far in seperating out defunct things. I think we should just group together all things published in the Soviet Union without regard to their current operational status.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 2 August 2022 (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:Deniers of the Armenian genocide[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. It might worth considering another group nomination of the siblings, listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_17#Category:Genocide_deniers, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_10#Category:Genocide_deniers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18#Category:Deniers_of_the_Uyghur_genocide. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contentious label: "denier or denialist." Madame Necker (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think we have a category for holocaust deniers, so why not this? This is an opinion so heinous that a category is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot make arguments based on the existence of other pages (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Also, whether a topic is heinous is not related to the policies. Therefore, I disagree with your opinion. Madame Necker (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out someone else's opinion is a weak argument. You may want to read WP:PERX Madame Necker (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I did not "Just point out someone else's opinion". I agree with the logic employed by another editor. Some things, such as holocausts, are so heinous that they defy strict interpretation of rules and deserve to be brought to mind and made easily searchable so that the horrors are less easy to brush aside and dismiss as aberrations. Their purpose is to forcedfully remind us all - never again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not a policy based argument. Madame Necker (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process by replying to every single commenter who disagrees with you. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the suggestion, I think I have made my point. Madame Necker (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That an opinion may be abhorrent is not a good reason for classifying articles on the strength of it. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not opinion it is far more egregious. They are people who advocate a political stance in support of that opinion (i. e. denying compensation / right of return / ongoing aggression directed against survivors). It would be useful to have the note that Category:Holocaust deniers uses: "This category is reserved for articles about people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial. It is not to be used for individuals who may have at some point indicated support for such views, but have not actively promoted them.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think we will need an RfC to discuss this category and Category:Holocaust deniers if there is no consensus. To me, these arguments feel like WP:RGW; we have already rejected Category:Climate change deniers several times because, among other issues including BLP, many of the members were primarily defined for their occupation, not for climate denialism. this is probably quite similar; I haven't checked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no need to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and point this out. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. All included article are appropriate, and Armenian genocide denial is as relevant and notable as Holocaust denial, ehich has it's own catevory of deniers. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2022 (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:Hand-controlled rhythm games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Hand-controlled rhythm games

Category:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 06:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of the project banner populated class Category:Template-Class New York City public transportation articles. Before deletion pages here should be tagged with the banner if they aren't. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LaundryPizza03: presumably you can tag the talk pages right now, irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. There is no reason to bother the closer with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: There are about 200 pages, and WP:PETSCAN does not work for template-space pages, so it is impractical to do this task manually. I do not have JWB. to do this myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done at WP:AWBREQ. The actual total was 508. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 11 August 2022 (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:Chief justices of Gibraltar[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: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 03:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), these categories are meant to be the same. The reverse nomination was opposed at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion

I dont mind which way it goes. Can we merge them and then discuss the capitalisation? Rathfelder (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC) * I propose to process it as nominated.– Fayenatic London 08:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC) **Reverse merge per C2C & C2D Most categories are still using capitals properly, they haven't been changed by the handful of obsessives who forced a bad section into the style guide and then proceeded to treat it as a dictat from on high. The office/title distinction is a hair split given how often a post holder is referred to by the position title as a proper noun but that distinction has been lost on the obsessives. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC) ** Process as nominated. Chief Justice of Gibraltar is a title; Chief justices of Gibraltar is not. Oculi (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that I concur with three editors in the speedy discussion on three different aspects. Concur with User:Rathfelder on: "Can we merge them (first) and then discuss the capitalisation?" Concur with User:Timrollpickering on "Most categories are still using capitals". Concur with User:Oculi on "Chief Justice of Gibraltar is a title; Chief justices of Gibraltar is not." The two latter comments together call for a batch nomination. But this nomination is simply about merging two identical categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - I am not sure that 'most' are using capitals: Category:Anglican archbishops by province is correctly capitalised as is Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese. Certainly the 2 should be merged. Oculi (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per style guide. It may be debatable, but it's our style guide so we should follow it unless we get a specific consensus against it, or a lack of consensus to implement it. Granted, most national categories within Category:Chief justices by country currently use upper case, but these are against many other precedents e.g. Vice presidents & Anglican archbishops. If we get consensus here for reverse merge, the rest of the "Chief Justices" categories should be speedily renamed. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & do not reverse merge The style guide (which is a guide not a set of dictats) has had some bad changes put in by the small handful who dominate it but that does not mean we are bound by their bad obsessions and a glance across Wikipedia shows that capitalisation of posts and holders is still the general norm except when some of the said obsessives have been ramrodding this one through. Post holders are often referred to by the post with capitalisation as proper nouns including collectively. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge per style guide and precedent. I have not opinion on whether the style guide is "right" but, even if it os flawed, that should be fixed at the style guide and not second guessed in CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since most category names must be written in the plural, that will result in a job title — which will normally be in the singular — no longer being true to its name. There is a job called "Chief Justice of Gibraltar"; there is no such job called "Chief Justices of Gibraltar". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to support 'reverse merge'. Oculi (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (not reverse merge). One person holds this office at a time and is called Chief Justice. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either merge or reverse merge. I do not have an opinion on whether "j" or "J" is appropriate for this position, proper noun versus descriptive.--Mvqr (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar issues arise with Category:Attorneys general, so perhaps we need a more general policy. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have a general policy, in MOS:JOBTITLES: "capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not ...". Oculi (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that is really clear enough in these cases where there clearly are formal titles. Do we need to add something about its application to categorisation? Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is "is not plural" not clear? 'Chief Justice of Gibraltar' is a formal title, 'Chief justices of Gibraltar' is not a title, formal or otherwise (and is plural). Oculi (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC) *I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but it has clearly escaped many editors. Why not make it easier to understand? Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per MOS and precedent. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:59, 11 August 2022 (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 York (state) state courts[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. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need the repetition? Rathfelder (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continue to Support -- New York (state) is a distinct jurisdiction from the federal system. It does not need a disambiguator. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support New York state - the disambiguator is unnecessary. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to @Oculi, RevelationDirect, and Marcocapelle: given the rationale of user:JBchrch against your preferred alternative, would any of you support the nomination more than the status quo? – Fayenatic London 13:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a fair reason to oppose, I am entirely withdrawing from this discussion, this is too complicated for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I would favor keeping the current name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (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:Films featuring puppetry[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:Puppet films. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an ip editor pointed out maybe it should be Category:Puppet films instead.★Trekker (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Redundant. The category already has a paragraph defining its scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dimadick: Not relevant, doesn't change that "featuring" is not defining. And over enthusiastic editors who overcategorize don't tend to read ot care about those kinds of comments.★Trekker (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but it would be recommendable if someone would check every article manually, to see if the film is really "about" this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it would be Category:Puppet films just as we have puppet theatre, it would be the puppet equivalent of category:animated films (which is not called "animation films") -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the same caveat as Marcocapelle. If the film merely has a scene with this, it should be in the about category, this needs to be checked on an item by item basis. There is no justification for categories for items merely appearing in the film, that is not being the main subject, as a brief appearance is not defining. [[:Category::Puppet films]] is probably even better.--Mvqr (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Puppetry films" implies films that are about puppetry or only feature puppets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because pupets were used even in a major way to make a film is not defining enough to categoize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/rename: it's not entirely clear a 'puppet film' is defining, but it's not currently. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:09, 11 August 2022 (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:Films featuring breakdancing[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 and purge. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, "featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just because a film features breakdancing does not make it a breakdancing film. The only correct way to change this would be to make it Category:Breakdancing in film. Nicholas0 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nicholas0: That doesn't really solve the issue of it being non-defining.★Trekker (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All you have done with your suggested renaming to "Breakdancing films" is create an additional problem because now you are forcing breakdancing to be the main focal point of the film with the category, which may not always be the case with these films. You may be thinking to yourself that a "defining" category must absolutely be the central focal point of a film, but look at the following examples to see how that is not necessarily the case. You would have to remove just about every single category if you want to remove everything that is not the main focal point of the film. According to your ultra-limited view of the term, Category:Toei Animation films could be considered "non-defining" because the same film could be made no matter what company produced it. That is often merely a business matter that occurs outside of the film itself and is interchangeable without affecting anything about the film itself. That is clearly "non-defining" if it makes difference to the film. Category:Films set in California could be considered "non-defining" because the location of a film may not necessarily be key to the plot, and the film was probably shot in Toronto anyway (without showing any real California landmarks) so any supposed location could be stated by the studio in the end in the film description. This category is therefore interchangeable, non-essential, and absolutely non-defining. Category:1981 films could be considered "non-defining" because the release of the film could have been delayed for years so the release year may have little to do with the film itself. That is definitely "non-defining" because if the film had been released a year later the category would be different (Category:1982 films) yet the film would be exactly the same. That is the very definition of "non-defining" because the movie is exactly the same yet the category changes. These categories, which are listed as examples of what is considered "defining" according to the early draft of the Wikipedia suggestions for categories (which are subject to change and alteration all the time anyway), are not in fact "defining" in terms of the film itself because they are not the main focal point of the film yet they are still legitimate categories. What is or isn't "defining" is therefore subjective. After all, if you took out the breakdancing elements from these films then the films would definitely be different films. It can therefore be considered a "defining" element because the films would be different without it. It's certainly as much of a defining element as an interchangeable film setting location, release year, or production studio. You may as well just delete all categories altogether if you want them to be the sole defining element of a film. All of the categories have to work together to give a full defining understanding of what the film is. The usual way elements like this are included is through categories using the formulation "Category: ***** in film", which is what I suggested for this. --Nicholas0 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicholas0: I don't see how its helpful categorize media if it isn't at least a main theme of its content, that just creates pointless overcategorization of minute details. Production categories are not the same, those are clear and far more easily defined (and the fact that films could have been made by other people doesn't change the fact that it was made by the specific people who did make it). How do we decide if a film has enough of a specific dance to count into a "featuring" category? One scene, two scenes, three scenes? With genre categories its far easier, there we just let sources decide if its a "thriller film/romance film/splatter punk film etc" Stuff like general depictions of subjects are better covered in articles, not categories, categories are navigational tools, I don't see the navigational help that stringing together every film that features a certain dance serves that an article couldn't do better. I also have mixed feelings on "Foo set in ___" categories, but thats another can of worms. If you think Category:Breakdancing films is a poor pick, would Category:Films about break dancing perhaps be better?★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the same problem, though? How do we decide if a film has enough of a specific thing to count into a genre category? One scene? Two scenes? Three scenes? As far as I can tell, according to the way genre categories are being used on Wikipedia now it's any presence of an element whatsoever. I see genre categories for things only existing in a single scene all the time because the "genre" concept is the only one that exists once you have stripped away all of the "featuring" and "in film" categories. This causes those categories to be abused for inclusion of details about things that are not actually the films' genre merely so that such information can be included. The use of "in film" or "featuring" categories is a very elegant and useful means of avoiding such misleading assertions of genre. All your proposed change does is create a very misleading assertion about the genre of the films listed within the category. I would just like you to take a moment to consider the slippery slope you are careening down with your approach to this whole subject. By your definition, you should propose deletion of the categories Category:Nudity_in_film and Category:Murder_in_films as well because these are not actually the genres of the films but simply aspects within them. It is surely far more useful for research purposes to have a category about breakdancing in film because there are only a handful of films that feature it so it is interesting to know and the scope is limited and definable. It sure seems like the two categories about nudity in film and murder in film are much broader and have significantly more films within them, to the point where there will never be a definitively complete list of all of the films that belong within them and therefore their usefulness as categories seems questionable in the first place. By what justification is the featuring of nudity or even the featuring of murder a defining genre any more so than the featuring of a specific dance? --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, sources are supposed to dictate what genres a film is categorized under. Missuse will always happen unfortunately yes, but I don't buy the idea that using "__ in film" or "featuring" is in any way preventing that. And yes as far as I'm concered Category:Nudity in film should probably be moved to another name, and Category:Murder in films should probably be merged with Category:Films about murder.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but it would be recommendable if someone would check every article manually, to see if the film is really "about" this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the same caveat as Marcocapelle. If the film merely has a scene with this, it should be in the about category, this needs to be checked on an item by item basis. There is no justification for categories for items merely appearing in the film, that is not being the main subject, as a brief appearance is not defining.--Mvqr (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:11, 11 August 2022 (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:Political history of Czechoslovakia[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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For former countries we do not need the separate category for political history. BlackBony (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom was blocked as a sockpuppeteer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:38, 2 August 2022 (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:Political history of the Soviet Union[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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For former countries we do not need the separate category for political history. BlackBony (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, everything in these categories is history so there is no point in having two separate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for event- and period-related content, but move other content to the parent where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: it may be helpful to be a bit more specific about which content you would prefer to keep here, if only by means of examples. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: "political history" content would include subcats for coups, protests, reform and UNSC resolutions (events); the bibliographies (period-related); articles and subcats named "history"/"chronology". – Fayenatic London 06:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom was blocked as a sockpuppeteer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:38, 2 August 2022 (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:Statistical physics[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 category and redirect. Note that currently only the eponymous article is left in the category. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category: statistical physics and statistical mechanics are essentially the same thing. See discussion about article merger of those two articles as well. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but perhaps this should wait until the article merger discussion is concluded. --Bduke (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article merger discussion is at Merger proposal. --Bduke (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, shouldn't that discussion have closed by now? It seems to have gone inactive over the last few months after agreement across the board. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the involved editors in the article merge discussion may close it, what are they waiting for? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A redirect would be better. I recall being taught statistical mechanics as part of my chemistry degree, but it could equally be a branch of physics. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2022 (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:Theories by Albert Einstein[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) 05:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure this requires its own category; yes Einstein is great and all, but a collection of articles due to him is already what the Albert Einstein category is for; this is the same as for the Niels Bohr category or the Richard Feynman category. The articles need not even have a common physical theme; they are just things that happen to be due to Einstein. OpenScience709 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2022 (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:Women's junior national softball teams[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WBSC uses U-18 rather than junior now. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 2 August 2022 (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:Poetry by nation or language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:Poetry by nation or language

Category:Gilaki clans[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) 05:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:03, 2 August 2022 (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:Tuvan aviators[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:Tuvan aviators

Category:North Yarmouth Academy[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) Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category about a school, which has an enrollment of 375 students in a small town in Maine, is unlikely to grow significantly. At present, it contains the article about the school and articles about two buildings the school owns. User:Namiba 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now contains Category:North Yarmouth Academy alumni, which should have been in the category to begin with. The campus also has other historic buildings which will have articles in due course. Seasider53 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now per WP:SMALLCAT. There are only 3 direct articles with no growth potential that I can anticipate. No objection to recreating if/when it ever gets up to 5 articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a bit small, but unless the 3 articles are merged to make one main article for the alumni category, we will get orphaned articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are already directly interlinked so orphaning is not an issue here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with Marcoapelle. Not sure how the building links will be orphaned by this proposal.--User:Namiba 14:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- four items is a bit small, but deletion will upset the structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already commented above. What structure? The vast majority of high schools do not have categories.--User:Namiba 17:44, 8 August 2022 (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:Environmental musical artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 11#Category:Environmental musical artists

Category:Monotypic Glossata genera[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: split and WP:SOFTDELETE. @AddWittyNameHere: would you be willing to implement the split yourself? My knowledge on the topic is too limited. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (Proposing as "other" because I have no clue how else to classify a proposal that boils down to "split/merge into two existing categories and then delete") Five-years-old barely implemented and effectively redundant taxo-categories by (long-blocked) block-evading sock User:Caftaric. Everything in Glossata is either a moth or a butterfly. Everything in Heteroneura is either a moth or a butterfly. Existing categories Category:Monotypic moth genera & Category:Monotypic butterfly genera therefore cover everything that would belong in these categories, and the handful (24 and 15, respectively) of articles currently in each of the proposed-for-deletion categories can easily be placed into whichever of those two they belong to; whereas fully implementing this scheme would result in a layered mess of near-empty, near-meaningless categories before getting to the bulk of actually useful subcategories due to the taxonomical structure of Lepidoptera--and would require thousands of edits to boot. AddWittyNameHere 07:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2022 (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/2022_August_2&oldid=1166567919"