Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

[edit]

Category:Deans of law schools in India

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Category:Deans of law schools in India

Category:Western (genre) adventure 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. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Virtually all Westerns are adventure films and these categories are superfluous and unnecessary, especially as the criteria for inclusion is ambiguous in that some of the articles mention adventure but most do not. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:18, 28 July 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:Western (genre) action 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. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Virtually all Westerns are action films and these categories are superfluous and unnecessary, especially as the criteria for inclusion is ambiguous in that some of the articles mention action but most do not. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:56, 28 July 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:TikTokers by gender

[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. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATGENDER as gender in this instance has no specific relation to the topic. User:Namiba 19:14, 28 July 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:Pangender Wikipedians

[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. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category has existed for more than 5 years and still contains only one user page, so it does not contribute much to user collaboration. There is no need to merge, the user is already in Category:Non-binary Wikipedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 28 July 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:Foreign films shot in Japan

[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. I will use Petscan to remove those that are already sub-categorised by prefecture/city. I am also making a procedural nomination for similar categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Foreign films. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have a comprehensive scheme of using the category system to segregate the foreign films shot in a country from the domestic films shot in a country. We normally just categorize them together, and subcategorize by jurisdiction (e.g. specific city or prefecture) where possible and known. And no, the parent category isn't large enough to need this, either -- adding everything here to that category still wouldn't even get it to 200 articles, precisely because many films are already subcatted by city or prefecture. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder whether this isn't a current aspect of categorisation that should be revised. The current system results in rather haphazard categorisation where most locally shot films aren't categorised by location, and the few that are become outliers in the location category, which are dominated by foreign films. There doesn't seem to be an elegant way to do this, though; having Fooian films shot in Foo, Fooian films shot abroad and Foreign films shot in Foo for every country seems rather unappealing to me. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's surely undesirable to have a huge and overcrowded Category:Films shot in Japan. I'd say it's an easy Wikidata retrieval by combining search criteria like filming location and country of production to find the fitting films. And I think that Category:Foreign films shot in Japan is a useful category for our users to explore. (If the existing scheme is not supporting it in a satisfying manner we should eventually rebuild the scheme.) --Just N. (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge per nom We typically categorize by shooting location because the films tend to use a location's historic buildings and geographic features, that may be of interest to readers. Whether a film was produced by a foreign or domestic company is not that defining. And the category actually includes a number of films that are co-productions between Japanese companies and foreign partners. Dimadick (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we do not categorize by what something is not, and that is what foriegn is in this case, not Japanese. Although as Dimadick rightly points out, not all of these are actually fully not Japanese. It is enough that we categorize films by nationality (although this is sometimes complex) and by location of filming, we do not need to start a category covering some intersection of the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 20 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:Elean colonies

[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Pandosia (Epirus), and it does not mention ancient Elis. Nor is this colonial relationship mentioned in ancient Elis or Greek colonisation. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep; but possibly consider a more consistent structure of this category, its sisters, and its nieces. The category was placed on a too high level in the category tree, which may have given a weird impression. I just moved it from Category:Greek colonies to Category:Greek colonies by origin, which is more suitable. As can be seen, this is just one of a plethora of categories naming by which `tribe' or from which city (state) colonies were formed. IMHO, this is quite appropriate, at least for colonies founded in pre-hellenistic times, since there really was no political unity Greece in those times. On the other hand, just browsing, I find a few categorisations I do not understand. (E. g., Why is Korčula but not Rome categorised in Category:Trojan colonies; and should that category really be a subcategory of Category:Greek colonies by origin? Actually, I think that in the antiquity, and also later, there was almost a sport to provide Trojan origin for one's own people.) JoergenB (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the rethinking of the category tree which JoergenB has provided seems a good direction. --Just N. (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Procedural relisting after User:JoergenB inappropriately removed the CfD tag. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
My sincere apologies, @Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london! I did not intend to remove the CfD listing, and was not aware of having committed this (as you mention) rather inappropriate act. I don't understand how this happened. Possibly, I was looking at an older version, and mistakenly editing this; but, if so, the system must have sent me the standard warning about editing an old version, which I should have observed. Of course, the listing should not have been removed until some decision has been reached. JoergenB (talk) 14:21, 29 July 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:Jewish anarcho-capitalists

[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) 18:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, this is intersection is not "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." User:Namiba 16:19, 28 July 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.

Squares by city

[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. Per other discussions that closed in favor of "squares" only. bibliomaniac15 19:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the parents for each nation e.g. Category:Squares in Australia, rather than the generic international parent. Note: I have not nominated New Zealand, because Dunedin does have one called "Plaza". – Fayenatic London 14:53, 28 July 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.

Plazas in South America

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Plazas in South America

Plazas in Peru

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Plazas in Peru

[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) 18:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We typically don't categorize things by what they are not, i.e. Category:Hyperbolic knots and links. In this case, the category is redundant to the disjoint union of Category:Satellite knots and links and Category:Torus knots and links because all knots and links can be cleanly classified as either torus, satellite, or hyperbolic (Thurston 1980).
Note that if this category and the one immediately beneath are deleted, then Category:Knots and links by hyperbolic volume will be empty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:16, 28 July 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.
[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 5#Category:2.82812 hyperbolic volume knots and links

Category:Jewish botanists

[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. – Fayenatic London 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Excessive differentiation - not defining. Being Jewish does not appear to have affected their work as botanists. All are already in botanist categories Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 28 July 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_28&oldid=1073192971"