Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 27

< July 26July 28 >

July 27

Category:United States Hockey Hall of Fame

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 create containers as appropriate. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy on grounds of changing a topic category to a set category, so moved to full discussion. Contents of the category and the definition of the category itself are "inductees to the USHHoF", and the other subcats of Category:Hall of fame inductees are "Foo inductees", so... Rename as nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 27 July 2012 (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:Walhalla enshrinees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, for people honored in the Walhalla memorial, reflects a characteristic that is not defining for most of the people who are categorized.
The Walhalla memorial was completed in the mid-19th century and honors giants of German(ic) history from the past two millenia. While it may or may not be a defining honor for those who lived and died after its construction, it is by no means defining for people such as Arminius (died 21); Alaric I, King of the Visigoths (died 410); Theodoric the Great (died 526); Alboin, King of the Lombards (died 572); Charlemagne (died 814); Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (died 899); Johannes Gutenberg (died 1468); Nicolaus Copernicus (died 1543); Martin Luther (died 1546); Johannes Kepler (died 1630); Peter Paul Rubens (died 1640); Charles X Gustav, King of Sweden (died 1660); Frederick the Great (died 1786); and Holy Roman Emperors Arnulf of Carinthia (died 899), Otto I (died 973), Conrad II (died 1039), Henry III (died 1056), Frederick I (died 1190), Frederick II (died 1250), Maximilian I (died 1519), and Charles V (died 1558). These people and most others on the list are remembered as artists, innovators, philosophers, scientists, generals, kings, and emperors, who shaped the course of European and world history, and not as a result of any honor, no matter how prestigious, bestowed upon them centuries after their deaths.
The main article contains a full, detailed list, and this is a much more suitable method than a category of storing this information. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (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.
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 Black Falcon, and possibly purge. There seems to be both a desire to keep the content and a willingness to change the category names to match the surrounding categories, which may result in some films needing to leave the category tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Films do not have religions. There is no objective standard to determine whether a film is sufficiently "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever to go in the category. For instance Torch Song Trilogy (film) is included as a Jewish film but other than a few seconds of a character's reciting kaddish for his dead lover no character's Judaism figures into the film at all. If a film truly deals with the intersection of a religion and homosexuality it can be included the appropriate sub-category of Category:Homosexuality and religion. Also nominated are the subcategories Category:Christian LGBT-related films, Category:Jewish LGBT-related films and Category:Muslim LGBT-related films68.190.166.40 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless a very convincing proposal is made to delete the entire tree of films and religion. I see no reason to single out LGBT films, and the intersection is certainly encyclopedic. The "films do not have religions" issue should be addressed by a rename proposal, and films that do not belong should simply be removed, rather than being used as an excuse to delete good categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:LGBT-related films about religion. This category tree is the result of an intersection between Category:LGBT-related films and Category:Films about religion; therefore, the problem is not one of scope but rather one of naming: the current names do not reflect what is being categorized. The subcategories also should be renamed to Category:LGBT-related films about Christianity (per Category:Films about Christianity), Category:LGBT-related films about Jews and Judaism (per Category:Films about Jews and Judaism), and Category:LGBT-related films about Islam (per Category:Films about Islam). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Non-notable, non-defining intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per roscelese.-- altetendekrabbe  01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename preposition) as per roscelese. There are lots of LGBT-related films relating to religion, exploring the intersection of LGBT issues and a particular religion. As for the "films don't have religion" argument, maybe you just want to propose a change in preposition -- from "by" to "about" as in the main category tree. --Lquilter (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • split/rename/? There seem to be two if not three quite distinct categories here: one set of films which specifically deal with homosexuality and religion as a primary subject (most of which are documentaries), and others where either religion is the main theme and homosexuality enters as a complication, or where homosexuality is the main theme and religion is a side issue. None of members of the existing Christian subcategory are Christian films per se; they are all secular films with religious and homosexual themes. A more accurate name would therefore be Category:Films with Christian and LGBT themes. The phrase "LGBT-related" is weaselly in context, tending to suggest that any film with a priest and Rock Hudson in it would qualify. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename Definitely a notable intersection of two major facets of a human being, their sexuality/gender and their spiritual/religious life. The two often being in conflict with conservative religious traditions. Insomesia (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2012 (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:Media in New Jersey

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, but renominate the entire set of Category:American media by state subcategories. This is just to align the New Jersey category with the others in the category, where it indeed does stick out like a sore thumb. The entire set of state categories should be nominated for renaming, where the discussion can center on whether any of them have the right name. This is only to avoid the problem that Bushranger describes, where if the rename doesn't pass, we're not back here again discussing this outlier.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Media in New Jersey to Category:New Jersey media
Nominator's rationale: This category was renamed out of process last year. I undid the manual rename, but was reverted as creating a "pointless circular redirect." Rename to return the category to its original name and to align it with the other members of Category:American media by state (from which it has been inexplicably removed). - Eureka Lott 18:17, 27 July 2012 (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:Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme

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. A search for this WP:FAKEARTICLE-ish "category" turns up nothing but Wikimirrors. It's either a hoax or something WP:MADEUP (or both). Either way, WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 04:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Okay, what on Earth is this, and why has it been here since 2007? There is no article for Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme, so my best guess is this is an article that got created in category space, so it needs moving, and maybe should or should not continue as a category. Courcelles 18:05, 27 July 2012 (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:Irwin Allen productions

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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I noticed afterward that the film category should instead be Category:Films produced by Irwin Allen. So I made it that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains both TV shows and films, and we normally split those. The shows seem all done by the Television Productions studio, while the films are just attributed to Allen, as far as I can tell. This category is populated by a template which will have to be manually broken up.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2012 (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:930 establishments in North Korea

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:930 establishments in North Korea to Category:930 establishments in Korea
Nominator's rationale: Korea was not partitioned until the 20th century. Tim! (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2012 (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:MC2

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 27 July 2012 (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:Entities with Welsh names

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be a rather arbitrary set of inclusion criteria and is likely not defining. What do buildings have in common with organizations? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2012 (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:People from Sharon, Kansas

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has the population of 158 and the category has just two entries. ...William 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which states "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which this is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What scheme?...William 10:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scheme of people by location. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (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:People from Crawford, Nebraska

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Town has a population of less than 1,000. Little chance for growth. ...William 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which states "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which this is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What scheme?...William 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scheme of people by location. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of where people are from is done by county unless the town or city a person is from has enough notable people to justify its own category. Two isn't enough....William 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the policy that states that? Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAIL. Sorry, I don't see the policy that relates to this issue about how many entries a location category should have so it can be created. Try again. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy. There is WP:CONSENSUS on this manner through many CfDs. The by-county categories are part of an established scheme per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. The by-city categories are not. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think keep would be best, since the county's other incorporated town has its own category and keeping Crawford's category just seems more organized. But then again, I'm the one who created the category in the first place. Chevsapher (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Two is an insufficient number for a small town to have its own category per the consensus of many CfDs. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. If you want to save the category, you'll have to find more notable people. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the consensus is that two people is not enough to create a seperate distinction, at least where there is a county to put the people in. There is no clear indication what the actual minimum is and how the total number of people from the county works into the equation, but it seems clear we will not keep categories from a place in a county with just two people in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2012 (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/2012_July_27&oldid=1138396494"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 27, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.