Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

Category:See also templates

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: renamed by Od Mishehu. (He cites this discussion in the deletion summary.) (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:See also templates to Category:Related-topic templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, as suggested in a discussion on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:See also templates to Category:See-also templates or Category:"See also" templates – Missing hyphen, otherwise use quotemarks. 213.246.83.192 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see why a hyphen is required. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the goal is to clarify that the title is not written in the imperative mood, and instead that it contains a compound modifier. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it exactly.
Another possibility is Category:"See also" templates, but the quotemarks might overly complicate the category's ordering in alphabetical lists, etc. 213.246.83.192 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Related topic templates? – Fayenatic London 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better title, but not speediable, so it would need a full discussion. After seeing Black Falcon's explanation I was going to withdraw my objection to the speedy ... but I will sustain it to allow a full discussion on FL's proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, to avoid ambiguity, it'd be Category:Related-topic templates. 213.246.83.192 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 24 December 2013 (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.

American films by date

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 all. Merger is desirable, but the articles involved are already in all the relevant target categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American dates films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:American Decades films
- Category:American 1950s films
- Category:American 1951 films
In addition, nominating:
- Category:Mexican 1945 films

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization, categorizing by an intersection of date/year and county is not encouraged and should involve project discussion before such an endeavor takes place. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge 1945 and 1951. These are the only national categories, except one by language. Delete the other two which have no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the films with the year cats are already in the appropriate categories for an upmerge, requesting an upmerge seemed unnecessary. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:23, 24 December 2013 (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:Murdered Persian monarchs

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: relisted at CFD 2014 January 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murdered Persian monarchs to Category:Murdered Iranian monarchs -- Many of the kings of Iran were not of Persian origin only, there were also kings of Dailamite and Parthian origin.. etc.

Rename but not as nom. The category covers many predecessor states of Iran, which did not necessarily have the same borders as the present Iran. Possibly Category:Murdered monarchs of Iran (or in Iran) with a headnote saying that it relates to Iran and predecessor states. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be a good idea and those rulers of another ethnicity should have their own category, like Turkic rulers should have Category:Murdered Turkic monarchs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Persian and Iranian are synonyms. There is no clear point at which Persia becomes Iran, the terms were used in different circles for hundreds of years to mean the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persian and Iranian are not synonyms, the Persians belong to the Iranian group, just like the Dailamites, Sogdians, Khwarmezians, Bactrians, Kurds, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Balochis.. etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In contemporary usage, Iranian means someone from Iran and Turkish means someone from Turkey. That is the primary use of both terms in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look here: Iranian peoples. Parthians, Dailamites..etc.. are not Persians, they are Iranians, which is a not a synonym and everyone knows that. Well, almost everyone does. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Iranian can be used for people from the country of Iran. Which was at one point called Persia. So the terms can be synonyms. Terms can have multiple meanings, and everywhere else when we use "Iranian" in Wikipedia, it reeferes to the present country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a one point called Persia in the West. You can't call people like the Sogdians, Dailamites and Parthians for Persians. That's like calling the Kurds for Persians. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2014 (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:Female television directors

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:Women television directors (but to me, this sounds flagrantly ungrammatical). -Splash - tk 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female television directors to Category:Women television directors

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy:

Category:Female television directors to Category:Women television directors – this was tagged on 8 September by QuasyBoy (talk · contribs), I imagine not added to this page. C2C per Category:Women in television would seem to apply.. Tim! (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is natural that a topic category, such as Category:Women in television, should use "Women" as a noun instead of "Females". It does not follow, however, that a set category such as Category:Female television directors ought to use "Women" as an adjective. In addition, the main list for the category is List of female film and television directors. Also, changes of 'Female' to 'Women', or vice versa, have been discussed before (most recently, in April 2013, without a clear consensus emerging. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be consistent with sister categories Category:Women television journalists and Category:Women television writers. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the general nominations failed because people felt women was appropriate in some cases and female in others. The closer (Goodolfactory) noted "no consensus; in general, users seem open to some case-by-case fixes." I think the television occupations should be consistent with each other and the general Category:Women artists tree. If we want to rename the others to use female, that is also an option. Tim! (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The April 2013 CFD rejected the consistency argument in favour of assessing the "women foo"/"female foo" choice on a case-by-case basis. So we need evidence of the actual usage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match Category:Women film directors. There is a clear precedent to use women in directors cats. "Women" is the general term for adult human females, and we generally use "women" for categories, like directors, where virtually all the biographies will be of people who only did this as adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The case raised by JPL is convincing. I'm getting tired of linking individual requests to no consensus broad requests to rename. Individual renames should not be allowed to fail solely because a general discussion to rename many category fails because of the need to discuss the individual categories as is being done here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2014 (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:Female cinematographers

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:Women cinematographers. -Splash - tk 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female cinematographers to Category:Women cinematographers

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy:

Category:Female cinematographers to Category:Women cinematographers – C2C: per Category:Women in film Tim! (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is natural that a topic category, such as Category:Women in film, should use "Women" as a noun instead of "Females". It does not follow, however, that a set category such as Category:Female cinematographers ought to use "Women" as an adjective. Also, changes of 'Female' to 'Women', or vice versa, have been discussed before (most recently, in April 2013, without a clear consensus emerging. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the consistency is also with the sister categories Category:Women film directors and Category:Women screenwriters. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The April 2013 CFD rejected the consistency argument in favour of assessing the "women foo"/"female foo" choice on a case-by-case basis. So we need evidence of the actual usage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For - It has come to my attention that there may well be a difference between the terms woman and female, that I had not considered. Transgender people, apparently, who are or have transitioned from male to female, call themselves women and not female, and so, in order to be more inclusive, I agree that the page should be changed to Category:Women cinematographers.l santry (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? It would be news to the trans women who I know, and would be vigorously opposed by them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intent to offend anyone! It is really difficult to cite or source this as there is so very much information in the blogosphere; however, it is my understanding that, based upon many sources, there is a distinction made between gender identity and sex even among "trans women" (their term not mine). Furthermore, some cis women (biological women) are offended by trans women referring to themselves as female (because of the genetic difference)while the same people can accept that trans women have a feminine gender identity. Again, I am just interested in being more inclusive.l santry (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if there is a decision, and if so when would this decision be made?? Just wondering.l santry (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will put it in line with Category:Women film directors. Women is the preferred term for adult human females. In cases like cinementographers where almost all the women involved are adults, we should use the women term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The case raised by JPL is convincing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (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.

Fooian revolutionaries

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(to be further populated)

Title is inherently POV: one person's revolutionary is another's rebel, etc. Also, has been included in numerous instances where the individual did not even touch a weapon (such as Kartini and Nyai Ahmad Dahlan). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there are categories for rebels too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the British category, which is being misused, having no one involved in a political revolution or attempt at one in it at all; the one individual seems more like a trades union campaigner. The rest are a hotch-potch, some of which need purging individually. If that leaves any empty they can be culled with db-empty. Keep the rest -- they are those who led a revolution or wished to. If the revolution is successful, they will still be revolutionaries. If they fail, they will be failed revolutionaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked all several hundred articles in these categories? How many are actually revolutionaries? Read Nyai Ahmad Dahlan and Kartini... what says "revolutionary" about them? There could be dozens of miscategorised individuals in there — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis that there are many people that are identified as revolutionaries i.e. believing in or organising towards revolution. There's nothing negative about being described as such (the nominator is confusing revolutionaries with terrorists, I think). After all, we have categories for anarchists and no-one seems to be complaining about them!

Obviously the description 'revolutionary' would need to be suitably verified as applicable to the subject of each article. All that being said, there are some of these categories containing only one article and they could conceivably be deleted. But others such as Category:Cuban revolutionaries are very full. And surely no-one is denying there have been revolutions in many parts of the world, including England and France. Sionk (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Deletion statement does not make sense when compared to the WP referenced article Revolutionary. To be a revolutionary has been an honorable pursuit to improve the lives of people--though not always successfully. Revolutionaries, like revolutions, may be violent or not--all are included. Also see Revolution to gain an understanding of what this all means. Nothing here requires the use of weapons, though they are used in some situations. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator needs to stop removing articles from these categories and restore all that he removed since he shows no understanding of the term, 'revolutionary', and is just hunting for violence and violent people to include. Nominator simply and wrongly emptied all articles out of Category:Indonesian revolutionaries. Hmains (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's adding these categories needs to read the articles. Nyai Ahmad Dahlan, a revolutionary? Please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now note that Hmains is edit warring on articles, readding the category to biographies which are clearly not about revolutionaries. Example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to read and understand the articles I referenced above so you can understand what a revolutionary is. You also need to read, understand and follow the rules for emptying categories and then coming to this forum to have the category deleted: this is specifically against the rules as an 'deleting out of process violation' Hmains (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note, with an intense unease, that you equate a sentence with the word "revolt" in it as being proof of someone being a revolutionary. That is exactly the issue I raised above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear inclusion criteria can be found. This is inherently POV pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think that the term is biased. Same as rebel. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think rebel is a POV term? Wow. Had the British won, it wouldn't have been "American Revolution", it would have been "American Rebellion". Revolutionary automatically shows empathy to those who are "making the revolution happen", while rebel sides with the government in power and shows empathy with their position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2013 (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.