Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Category:Fictional lamps[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. ✗plicit 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a creation of a blocked vandalism account, per WP:NARROWCAT. There are no stand-alone articles about fictional lamps to fill this category. We don't need to WP:OVERCAT the two anthropomorphized Pixar characters that meet this criteria. Jontesta (talk) 21:57, 31 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:Fictional peninsulas[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. ✗plicit 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NARROWCAT. There just aren't very many peninsulas in fiction that have achieved stand-alone notability. Jontesta (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have added the category to two redirects which are fictional peninsulas. I hope that's ok. Daranios (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 and Zxcvbnm: I've found a number of redirects fitting to our category, showing that appearances of the topic on Wikipedia are not as rare as one might have expected. Probably there are more out there. Daranios (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but I still don't see why a category should be populated mostly by redirects. They can hang out in Category:Fictional countries which undoubtedly should exist, until such time as they are expanded into articles (if ever). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: But fictional countries comes at this from a different angle. If we are fine with distingishing by type of natural feature in general, why should we make an exception for peninsulas? It's also a lot harder to expect spontaneous creation of a Category:Fictional peninsulas when we have more (again, is there a guidance for numbers? 5? 10? What about redirects when counting?) than to have it grow slowly. And if there is no general objection to distinction by natural feature, deletion based on being to narrow an intersection between fictional and peninsula leaves open the question how this should be folded into the parent category. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge WP:SMALLCAT does not apply: Peninsulas may be a less common geographical feature in fiction than others, but it is not correct that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". There are many fictional peninsulas, there will be more in the future, and more getting notable is both possible and likely in the long run. It's unsurprising that there are no redirects here, as redirects are generally not supposed to have categories (for reasons I don't see). WP:NARROWCAT says we should not split out categories if there are too few entries, which in reverse conclusion means we should merge this category back into Category:Peninsulas rather than just delete it. Brobdingnag and Xanth are not yet included the parent category, but they are peninsulas. So if this subcategory is deleted, where should we put them? As only examples into the main category? I find this ok but not ideal, that's why I ask to consider keep as an alternative to merge despite only having two entries currently. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "more getting notable is both possible and likely in the long run" Possible, yes, likely, definitely not. I don't see how you can assume that there will be numerous more articles on a specific fictional landform with the criteria for inclusion being as they currently are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: To my knowledge, extant fiction has grown more than linearly (certainly so if we look back until Swift), scholarly sources have grown almost exponentially, focus on popular literature has increased in recent decade(s), and Wikipedia is growing linearly. Why should we expect just our topic here to defy those trends? "numerous? - I don't know. Is there any guidance on what minimum number we should expect? It's not spelled out in WP:NARROWCAT nor in WP:SMALLCAT (which is meant for other cases anyway). But as I said, numbers are not the only concern here. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles are also in Category:Fictional countries and that suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 1 September 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:Politicians convicted of corruption in Arkansas‎[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. ✗plicit 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current names imply that the politicians were convicted of corruption in the particular state, but this isn't necessarily true; many were for example federal convictions. The proposed names also better match similar categories such as the parent Category:American politicians convicted of corruption and other top-level categories under Category:Politicians convicted of corruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but (if there are enough of them) a separate subcategory can be created for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The state where they served is more significant than the place of conviction. I doubt we need to distinguish federal and state convictions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree that the locale of the politician is more important than the specific locale of the court which delivered the verdict. --Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 6 September 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:Fictional human–animal hybrids[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. ✗plicit 00:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT as a recently made, redundant category that mostly overlaps with the parent category. Specifying they are hybrids with animals is not necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. I didn't create these categories (Human–animal hybrids, Fictional human–animal hybrids, and Mythological human–animal hybrids) for no reason.
As for the Fictional category, well I think human-animal hybrids are distinct enough from the likes of Fictional half-demons, Fictional extraterrestrial–human hybrids, Fictional half-vampires, etc. The whole purpose is to group together examples of fictional characters that are exactly that: (artificial) amalgamations of humans and animals created through magic or science.
As of now, this category contains 6 subcategories and 12 pages, while the Mythological counterpart has 14 subcats. I think it's quite evident that these categories have enough merit to stand on their own; Human-animal hybrids doesn't overlap that much with the other Human hybrid categories, and certainly isn't rendered redundant. The same argument for merging Fictional human–animal hybrids into Fictional human hybrids could just as easily apply to the other human hybrid subcategories, like the ones for aliens, demons or vampires. AHI-3000 (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not this is about genetics is not set in stone. This is about fiction, not about science. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't the point I was trying to make. Even in fiction, something does not have to be a "human hybrid" to be anthropomorphic. While some of such characters certainly are, that isn't nearly a requirement in the slightest, so it's not a "valid subcategory". Category:Human–animal hybrids was also recently created and is extremely dubious as well... there are no real human-animal hybrids yet, I'd hope... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, to keep human–animal chimeras distinct from hybrids with fantasy Earth races (e.g. Middle-earth elves) or with extraterrestrials. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 7 September 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:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty

Category:Survival thriller 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: merge. ✗plicit 00:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge among Category:Survival films and its subcategories. Recently Survival thriller and Category:Survival thriller were deleted. Presumably most survival films are thrillers or horror movies. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 31 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:Hintata[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Category:Hintata

Category:People of medieval Islam and all subcategories[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 as follows:
– Fayenatic London 09:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Category:People of medieval Islam
Category:People executed in medieval Islam
Category:Women scholars of medieval Islam
Category:Women of medieval Islam
Category:People of medieval Islam by religion
Category:Prisoners and detainees in medieval Islam
Category:People of medieval Islam by occupation
Category:People of medieval Islam by location
Category:People of medieval Islam by ethnicity
Nominator's rationale: A very strange category: People who lived under the rule of Islam during the Middle Ages, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity or language. Also I propose to delete all subcategories (I tagged them). Marcinówka (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion, these categories refer to a civilization rather than a religion, and even if that is deemed improper a merge should take place (rather than deletion) to keep the content within the medieval tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, there is an alternative naming format in Category:Religion in the medieval Islamic world, which is slightly more precise and a bit longer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion -- I agree that this is a strange category, which would be better dispersed into national categories. I sampled Category:Women scholars of medieval Islam, which appears to be in contrast with Modern women scholars of Islam. I suspect that one should be [:Category:Medieval women scholars of Islam]]. In that case it may be better to disperse (if at all) by Muslim sect, e.g. Shia/Sunni. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's apparent that something should be done, but deletion doesn't seem to be it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment, while it may be a minority opinion, I still want to stipulate that I am not even sure that something should be done here. The categories are more or less in line with the Islamic Golden Age while "medieval" fits nicely with the existing category structure based on European history. Diffusing by nationality as suggested by Peterkingiron is very difficult because there weren't any stable countries in medieval Islam with a clearcut country name. By lack of that, we mostly have articles about dynasties instead of countries (e.g. Buyid empire redirects to Buyid dynasty). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a move to "... of the medieval Islamic world" is needed. Privybst (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough, this rename is something that I am supporting. But at least then the categories would be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renames to "... of the medieval Islamic world. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 4 September 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.

Football in French Polynesia/Tahiti categories[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/merge but keep redirects for all. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Though the region's national team is known as "Tahiti" by FIFA, it actually represents all of French Polynesia. Therefore, except for the national teams, the football category tree should use "French Polynesia". This would be consistent with Category:Football in Taiwan, a similar naming difference where FIFA refers to Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei". S.A. Julio (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but maintain the 'Tahiti' categories as redirects. GiantSnowman 19:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and redirect Tahiti per GS. Nehme1499 19:37, 31 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_31&oldid=1109103668"