Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 28

< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Municipalities in the Czech Republic with significant Polish population

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 contents is listed on the talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting/listifying Category:Municipalities in the Czech Republic with significant Polish population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to do with this category. The problem is that "significant" is a rather loose standard, and it's undefined. How do we decide what goes in the category and what does not? It seems this would be more amenable to a list, where the specific numbers of Polish people can be stated. So I'm proposing deletion/listification, but I'm open to other ideas. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify per nom, most of these places have 15-30% Polish population, not enough to be considered a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No objection to listifying. To vague and demographics shift. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete significance is subjective WP:SUBJECTIVECAT; its also temporary as demographics shift and thus not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most Listify -- We cannot allow a category becasue the inclusion criterion is subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify considering such percentages do change over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 February 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:Roman gentes

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Category:Roman gentes back into parent Category:Ancient Roman families. These are basically duplicate categories, and entries tend to be listed in both. I would keep the one in plain English, since probably less that 0.1% of our readers know what gentes means. I suppose that if there are a bunch of articles on families that don't qualify as gentes, that the parent category could be mostly diffused into the subcategory. Not sure I care either way, as long as the average Roman gens is no longer listed in both.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I'm no expert, but gentes seems to be only one of several partitions of this category. Note the "average" gens doesn't seem to be in both, as there are 579 in the gentes category, and less than 50 in families. Perhaps somebody needs to go through the remaining gens in this parent and properly recategorize?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree with William Allen Simpson that recategorizing the remaining articles will already solve the problem. The expectation that less that 0.1% of our readers know what gentes means is not that relevant; the readers of these articles will know. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same, as the family categories are mostly about the close relatives of a given individual, who are not necessarily all from the same gens. And for people who do not know the term, well usually people come to Wkipedia to learn things. I would probably estimate the amount of people who received some notions about Ancient Rome during their education a bit higher than 0.1%, but then I do not live in the U.S. Place Clichy (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A gens is not a family, and therefore the two categories are certainly not duplicates. Most gens pages are not (as of now) listed in Category:Ancient Roman families, and in time they should be simply removed from it, as William Allen Simpson said above. Avilich (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two categories serve different purposes. When I started working on gens articles more than ten years ago, I thought they might overlap and placed them in both; but more experienced editors suggested that they didn't belong, and over time I realized that was the case, and removed the ones still remaining in the "families" category from that, while new articles were never placed in it. The word "gens" is used in English with the same basic meaning, although generally only applied to people in Roman contexts. It can be translated several ways, including "family", which I would argue is the preferable translation—but the articles in "Roman families" are intended to have the more narrow meaning that Place Clichy indicates. Nobody searching for or reading about Roman gentes is going to be confused about the meaning—the articles are written in such a way as to make the distinctions clear. It's simple enough to remove the overlap from the relatively small number of articles that are still included in both categories. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the contents, I've gone ahead and removed that category and another from the handful of gens articles that still contained them. These articles have evolved over the years, from overcategorized stubs that hewed closely to the language of one of the principal sources, to fully-independent articles with a standard structure with better sourcing and formatting. That's one reason that almost all of the articles still in both categories occurred between the letters 'F' and 'M'; with a few exceptions the articles were written starting with 'A' and moving down through the alphabet. The oldest ones had all been corrected, along with many newer articles on small gentes throughout the alphabet, leaving these categories only in a small number of older articles in the middle. Removing them was already standard practice when older articles in the series were being brought up to date; this discussion just motivated me to finish the process, instead of dealing with them as I came across them. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the problem now resolved, perhaps a close may be performed immediately. The nominator said he doesn't care "as long as the average Roman gens is no longer listed in both". Avilich (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all reasons already given. This category should simply be depopulated of gens pages.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also removed a few articles which are already in Category:Ancient Roman cognomina. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close as Keep - as it is clear they are distinct and any ovelap has been eliminated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gens are closer to nature to extended clans, not families. Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all reasons already given. --Just N. (talk) 21:20, 2 February 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:Air Saint Martin accidents and incidents

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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Air Saint Martin accidents and incidents to Category:Airlines of France accidents and incidents and Category:Air Caraïbes
  • Propose deleting Category:Air Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Defunct airlines of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Airlines of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: the only content in these categories is an article about a 1995 accident and redirect Air Saint Martin. Target article Air Caraïbes mentions that it absorbed the former airline in 2000 without any other detail. I do not think that so many categories are necessary for so little content, and that the article about the accident can be moved to the parent categories. Place Clichy (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a number of other small cats under airline incidents and this one is as good a place to start as any. -RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:21, 2 February 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:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first title is a slight neutrality concern. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nomination. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nomination Fictional characters are heroes, real people are not. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname Less POV name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to a less POV-pushing form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 2 February 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.
  • Post Close Note A deletion review has been opened right here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of Bangalore

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. Category was not tagged in any case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed.

Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. If we want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. Similarly other Pages which are using Category:Government of Bangalore can use Category:Bangalore. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comments this nomination is on the wrong day page and the category has not been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved it to the correct day; I have not tagged it as it appears the nomination is going nowhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the rationale should at most lead to a rename, but it does not look like that is needed either. The category name is a valid English-language description. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom -- I note that the subheading on the info box is "Greater Bengaluru Municipal Corporation". I assume that the Indian government has followed its practice of Indianising names, but all the subcats and articles still use Bangalore. If the city name has been changed to Bengaluru then the category should be renamed to Category:Greater Bengaluru Municipal Corporation, which is in English rather than Hindi or some other Indian language. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle, the category name is an accurate English-language description of its contents, and matches not only how we name such groupings internationally, but elsewhere in India per Category:Government by city in India subcategories. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 18:40, 1 February 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:Proposed states of the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous, no need to distinguish, the parent is not very large.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:28, 28 January 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:Proposed provinces of the Philippines

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 nominated. The alternative target was deleted here, so these discussions were closed together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match others in the parent, "states and territories", "provinces and territories".
Cordillera autonomy movement is about more of a territorial region than a province, and it encompasses some provinces.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:17, 28 January 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:Non-sectarian Muslims

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 Category:Non-denominational Muslims. No consensus on deletion of the resulting category. Feel free to start a discussion on that subject. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Non-sectarian Muslims to Category:Nondenominational Muslims Category:Non-denominational Muslims
Nominator's rationale: I think these are categorizing the same thing? The article about it is Non-denominational Muslim, so I suggest that as the merge target. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if Kept/Maybe Delete Certainly these seem to overlap. I also have broader concerns though that this is WP:OCMISC since this is under Category:Muslims by branch but seems to be for Muslims that don't identify with a branch. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The single article in the category has a sourced statement for this, and there is no reason stated at this step to delete the target category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as the two categories obviously have the same scope. (The target may be nominated for deletion in a fresh discussion.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Muslims we don't have Category:Nondenominational Christians or Category:Nondenominational Jews; those believers (or in the case of Jews, members of that ethnicity in the WP way of ethnically classifying people) are simply lumped in the the main category for the adherents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first, pending nomination for delete target.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no actual distinction between the two. Considering in some cases sect has a very negative connotation, I would favor merging as proposed. Even though I know that in Christinaity non-denominational Christians often really refers to a specific group, which is not so much a general Christian group but a specific set of ideas, one of which is that they should have no other name but Christ as their affiliation, so it is not actually a general term for all believers in the divinity of Christ who do not affiliate with a specific group. If that is what one means one would say unaffiliated Christians. In some ways there is a non-denomination group that is a de facto denomination. Yes, I just got a headache from writing that, but it is the reality on the group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 11 February 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:Films shot in Konaseema

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard category for shooting locations which are usually categorized by city or state but Konaseema is neither. Ab207 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The group of islands form a distinct geographic location. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dimadick, that's good point, however, Konaseema is a loosely defined region, hence there are no definitive boundaries. In fact, most of the articles do not directly support the inclusion into this category. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, most of these films were shot in various places in Andhra Pradesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:27, 2 February 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.

Proposed subdivisions of Foo

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 parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Proposed subdivisions of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Proposed subdivisions of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, content is a single subcategory, no likelihood of expansion.
Therefore, no need to rename in accord with recent decisions.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the first merge target is nominated for renaming, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • I've already made the appropriate recategorization, there's no need to merge, merge does nothing useful.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The potential usefulness is in the fact that it is an automated process rather than a manual process. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This added layer adds nothing to navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 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:Proposed country subdivisions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In accord with previous decisions. The sub-categories are "States and territories". Those are political divisions.
  • Terminology: "Political division" is parallel to "administrative division" (sometimes overlapping).
  • Political divisions are primarily for larger countries that are further divided by sovereign territory/state/province.
  • Administrative divisions are entirely within a sovereign territory/state/province, and are governed under laws specific to each.
  • For example, a state or territory of the United States is a sovereign political constituent of the nation, therefore termed a political division. A US congressional district is also a political division, as it is related to the politics of the nation and doesn't necessarily have boundaries aligned with administrative divisions.
  • The US government has no say in the administrative division of states.
  • The first level administrative division of a state is often a "county", but instead Louisiana has "parish".
  • The UK is gradually devolving some powers; Scotland and Wales are political divisions of the UK, but their powers sometimes overlap the powers of the UK.
  • See previous renaming to Political divisions:
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. We have been renaming subdivisions to divisions lately so this is just a matter of consistency. Sort of consistency at least, because previously we have also been discussing or renaming to administrative divisions if I remember correctly. At some point in time we will have to discuss where "administrative division" ends in the category tree and where "political division" starts. In my mind nearly all of these divisions are political divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I've added an explanatory definition to the nomination. Hopefully, that clears things up sufficiently, without adding an entire textbook chapter.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is tendentious. Hopefully, you're not going to argue again here that France is really the same as the EU and the US.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's odd, since there doesn't seem to be anything substantive about political divisions there. Someday I'll look at that again. Only so many hours in a day.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:51, 29 January 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:Music catalogues

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 nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the established scope of the category; music catalogues are not an exclusively classical music thing, so the current category name is unclear Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated — that main article has 47 redirects, the name has changed so often. There seems to be a trend in Category:Classical music toward "Classical music ...", and in Category:Catalogues toward "... catalogues", so we should follow that naming convention, and rename the main article to match.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. --Just N. (talk) 21:31, 2 February 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:Cardassians

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. No need to merge to the other two categories. They already exist in a character category for the series. TTN (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep as useful enough, with 2 articles and 9 redirects; otherwise merge and listify in the article Cardassian. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I first saw this I thought it was Kardashians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a different alien species entirely. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. You just made my day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Just N. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 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.

Films by audience

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/purge. Children's films and teen films are already in Category:Films by genre and Adult films also belong there. This is follow-up on this discussion and this discussion. - @Place Clichy, Oculi, Carlossuarez46, *Treker, and Johnpacklambert: pinging contributors to earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I mentioned in the last discussion "adult films" is a euphamism for pornographic films, it is actually not a designation for all films that have as their intended audience adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: My guess the category was created as a parent category for Category:Adult animated films which is a category for Adult animation which in that case "adult" is not an euphamism for porn. But yes for general films it usually means porn.★Trekker (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is? I would have assumed something called an "adult animated film" was actually pornographic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnpacklambert: Porn animation is usually called Cartoon pornography. Although it's worth mentioning that this is mostly a western phenomenon, since animation is so deeply associated with children's entertainment here (in large part due to Disney).★Trekker (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is something to be said for the difference between a film being a specific genre, and the studio making it and marketing it towards a specific audience. For example, in Japan works of fiction are more often grouped together by which audience they seek (adult men, gay men, young boys, adult women, etc) more so than genre.★Trekker (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how would this work in practice. See the two items in Category:Animated films by demographic which seem to aggregate items already in Category:Animated films by genre. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Fritz the Cat (film) (which is basically rated-X) is what I think is obviously in "adult", but many others are films that can be legally viewed by kids and adults - kids may get something different out of that experience than adults do and clearly many work on both levels but objectively how do we separate that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This illustrates that "adult" is more a genre than an indication of age of audience, so it is an argument in support of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as is. I would favour a system of categories by demographic audience that would cover films as well as other media, such as comics and magazines. Clearly for comics and animation the divide between youth-oriented and adult-oriented publications is not only a matter of genre and not only a euphemism for pornography. E.g. you can find romance, action or historical genres in both. Category:Novels by age-group and Category:Mass media by interest are other categories worth considering which follow the same target audience logic. As the term mass media may not be applicable for all, I suggest creating a new Category:Entertainment by demographic audience or Category:Entertainment by age-group or Category:Entertainment by interest and moving other content there, renamed accordingly. The potential is clearly there for merging these variously-named schemes into something consistent. However, this structure should only host material for which this age-group target is defining, and certainly not to place every film or series or novel aimed at a generic audience in an age or gender category. Place Clichy (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So far it seems that age audience overlaps with genre - at least for children and teens - while adult stuff (named as such) is all about genre rather than age: it is about porn, violence and adult animation. All this applies equally to films and novels. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. Ghost in the Shell is probably a good example of an animated film aimed at an adult audience (rather than a youth audience as is often expected for animated films or comics), but its genre is sci-fi, not "adult" or erotica. On the other hand, Lucky Luke is a youth comics series, in the Western genre. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominated. Two relists are enough, bite the bullet, there was really only one contrarian.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominated. --Just N. (talk) 21:34, 2 February 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:Recipients of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Officers of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Officers of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite‎
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders or business investors visit the Morocco, or vice versa, the Order of Ouissam Alaouite is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, CEO Xavier Rolet and Emperor Bảo Đại are not remotely defined by this award. (The award seems to have been intended for other uses as well but there are no domestic winners in these categories although the main article has redlinks for two Moroccans: Mohamed El Mansour & Charles Tordjman). The category contents are now all listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 28 January 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:People of the Year Awards

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:People of the Year Awards
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SMALLCAT)
The People of the Year Awards were a specific Irish television award show that was discontinued in 2018. The only contents are People of the Year Awards and a list of winners with no real growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 28 January 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.

US college sports broadcasters

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Atlantic Coast Conference announcers to Category:Atlantic Coast Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Big East Conference announcers to Category:Big East Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Big Ten Conference announcers to Category:Big Ten Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Big 12 Conference announcers to Category:Big 12 Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Conference USA announcers to Category:Conference USA broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Mid-American Conference announcers to Category:Mid-American Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Mountain West Conference announcers to Category:Mountain West Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Pac-12 Conference announcers to Category:Pac-12 Conference broadcasters
  • Propose renaming Category:Southeastern Conference announcers to Category:Southeastern Conference broadcasters
  • OR delete all.
Nominator's rationale: As a result of this discussion, these categories were renamed from "FOO Conference broadcasters" to "FOO Conference announcers". However, unlike the other categories that were renamed in that discussion, these are actually categorizing television and radio stations that broadcast the conferences' games; they are not categorizing announcers. These should therefore be renamed back or deleted if it is thought to not be defining for the stations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems akin to WP:OCVENUE: instead of a performance's venues, we're taking about the stations which broadcast them. For a dedicated station like Pac-12 Network, it should be categorized directly under its conference like Category:Pac-12 Conference (which it already is in this case).—Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like WP:PERFCAT by company/station since who has the contract will often change and they have many other shows on. We don't categorize by stations with local news or stations that have a special for a local annual parade. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT and RD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- They look like broadcasters to me, but OCVENUE or PERFCAT strike me as applying. With the extent of syndication in US media, the stations that carry a particular broadcast seem NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Often non-defining for the stations. (As an aside, there are also often stations in the other announcer categories that got moved, and typically it's non-defining for them, too.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sammi Brie, I will list the new announcers-by-team categories at WP:CFDWM with a request that the radio and television stations be removed from these categories. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has been completed now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, we'd have wanted those entries still around if this TfD turned and wanted those stations categorized after all. Moot point now, given likely outcome here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many local stations don't even actually air games. In the Big 12 category KAUT is listed and the never air Oklahoma/Oklahoma State games.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT. -- Just N. (talk) 21:37, 2 February 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_28&oldid=1006247237"