Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Category:Dog breeds originating or developed in the USSR[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. (Since renamed to Category:Dog breeds originating in the Soviet Union per WP:CFDS.) – Fayenatic London 18:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to re-name the category into " USSR dog breeds", or " Soviet dog breeds". The reason for need is that some dog breeds originated in Russia, while some in USSR, and they differ. However due to the fact that Russia inherited Soviet "brands" , including authorship for most Soviet inventions, a lot of dog breeds are referred to as "Russian" while in reality they could origin in different countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Simply do what we do with other Soviet categories: categorise by country, and add the Soviet category if appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 24 May 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:Films set on beaches[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn; no consensus to delete in any case; prune as needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. I've seen a great many films on this list that simply have a single scene on a beach, some more memorable than others. I don't see how we could retain this and not then have films set in meadows, films set in fields, films set on sidewalks, etc. If kept, the category would need to be seriously pruned so that only films like The Beach (film), predominantly set on a beach, are permitted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I'd have no objection to withdrawing this, unless someone feels strongly it should go ahead. I think the category needs to be pruned of a lot of films that are not defined by beach settings, but I personally have no interested in doing so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, can we come to some sort of agreement then? Cheers. The problem for me is that although films like From Here to Eternity and Get Carter aren't mostly set on a beach or anything like it they're really quite notable for beach scenes. Obviously it is silly to categorize every film with a beach scene as such but I think we need a way to document the notable ones without implying that the films are set on a beach. A solution could be to keep the category to those which are half or fully set on a beach and to create a list of films which have notable beach scenes in them which are covered in multiple sources. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but I agree with the o.p. that it needs to be ensured that this genuinely is restricted to "films which are set on beaches or have sizable or memorable sections of films on a beach". Only "weak", because I do question whether this is ever going to be useful to anyone. Mogism (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, On the Beach, despite its name, shouldn't be included imo. Neither should the Bond films, nor Some Like It Hot. I think much pruning needs to be done, but that's not a reason to delete, in itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Especially The Seventh Seal...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I agree it needs to be better defined or instead replaced with a source list with a summary. It's not supposed to be for every film which ever had one beach scene in it. But those films which are predominantly set on a beach or have scenes on a beach in it which the film is famous for. It's a category I was looking for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or limit to where >50% of the film is on beach (yes, I know that's WP:OC#ARBITRARY). Films like Saving Private Ryan are in plenty of more appropriate categories. Possibly listify. DexDor (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. As much as I'll never forget that beach scene, I don't think it belongs here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply having scenes (even important scenes) set on a beach isn't a defining characteristic. The films in this category have nothing substantive in common. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After much rewording, I can't improve on what Jason A. Quest has said immediately above. No established commonality nor definition. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, now even as nominator, I have to point out that a film that is set primarily on a beach is a bona fide setting. And we do have some of those. So I'm going to have to change my own !vote to keep and prune if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that it may be logically possible to determine membership in the category (or not) doesn't address the issue of whether it is a meaningful or helpful category. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my argument. I'm saying that films set primarily on beaches can exist as a bona fide subcategory of Category:Films by geographic setting. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I think we can agree on narrowing it down to those films which are primarily set on beaches strictly and we can state this in the category talk page. We can leave a note saying only films primarily set on beaches can be included. Ones like The Seventh Seal and The Beach. The thing is what about ones like Saving Private Ryan and Ryan's Daughter which have significant footage on a beach. Would they be included? I think we need some leeway. we just need to draw line somewhere! Can you withdraw this? Otherwise it'll probably be deleted entirely and I think it has some use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I kind of thought my !voting keep would = a withdrawal. But sure. WITHDRAW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably well up on a lot of the films so feel free to remove the ones from the category you're not happy with. I'm not sure about Saving Private Ryan but I think Ryan's Daughter has enough beach footage to qualify, no objection though if you think otherwise. As memorable though as the beach scene is in Saving I really don't think you could call it significantly set on a beach. Ryan's Daughter on the other hand at least one third of the film was shot on the beach or clifftops. Ones like The Small Back Room I also think had enough significant footage to quality as the last third of the film was defusing a bomb on the beach.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 21 June 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:Religious buildings[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: not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per most of the branches of the category tree (Category:Religious buildings by century being the main exception), as well as the category's main article, Place of worship (Religious building redirects there). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This tree includes convents and other buildings like hospitals and some others. These are not places of worship. The absence of a main article and the fact that there is a poorly thought out redirect does not change the need for an article and this category tree which should be the parent for Category:Places of worship. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do need some sort of container category for things like religious museums, religion office/administration buildings, and the like. You might be able to get away with calling a convent or monastery a place of worship, but not some of these others. That said, since there are so many subcategories that use the terminology "places of worship", maybe the target category should be developed into a sub-container-category rather than being the redirect that is it now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others have said, not all religious buildings are places of worship. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose New name would not match the category contents which there is no rational reason to purge. Read the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Not all religious buildings are places of worship. The Quakers have meeting houses for theri meetings, but theri metings are not for worship in the conventional sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oppose the specific nomination, because not all religion-related buildings are places of worship, of course (and not all "places of worship" are "buildings"). But query: Can buildings properly be said to be "religious"? Wouldn't it make more sense to describe these as "religion-related ..." or "Religion-affiliated buildings" or something like that? --Lquilter (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One definition of "religious" is simply "of religion", so I think it's OK to use the word in describing a building. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 30 May 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:Southern Directors in Bollywood[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly titled article with bad grammar and slight POV. The category mainly lists those directors from South India who have frequently directed Bollywood films as well. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that a director worked in Bollywood is certainly defining; what other region of the country they might have come from is not. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 27 May 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:American astronaut–politicians[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 following the majority view in the similar discussions below. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each astronaut-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like Category:Singer-songwriters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except these are two separate careers, not one career involving both singing and writing. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an astronaut gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 25 May 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.

Actor-politicians[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 all. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each actor-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like Category:Singer-songwriters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except these are two separate careers, not one career involving both singing and writing. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an actor gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 25 May 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.

Sportsperson-politicians[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 all. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each sportsperson-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like Category:Singer-songwriters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except this is two separate careers, not one career involving singing and writing. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby a sportsperson gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • Comment why is it "Canadian sportsperson-politician" instead of "Canadian athlete-politician"? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the existing category is Category:Canadian sportsperson–politicians. Changing the words in any of the category names goes beyond the scope of what I was proposing here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all sportspeople are athletes. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the user's probably suggesting that in Canadian English, "athlete" = "sportsperson", as it tends to in American English. I'm not sure to what extent that is true, but I don't think we need to resolve it in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that's what I was guessing and addressing. I'm also Canadian, and can confirm that while that usage does exist among some speakers by virtue of the obvious AmE influence, it's not accepted as standard in CanE. But you're right that it's beyond the scope of this discussion; if the user wants to try (and fail) to get it renamed, they can shoot that blank some other time after the hyphenation issue is dealt with one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not a valid use of an endash. Not sure why this has gone unnoticed for so long. SFB 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Well enough populated to keep, at least in some cases. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 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:American Anglican church stubs[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 26. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the relevant permcat, Category:Episcopal churches in the United States - it apprears to be an ENGVAR issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within the Anglican Communion, "Anglican" vs. "Episcopal" has been essentially an ENGVAR issue, but now there are Anglican groups in the United States that have split off from the Episcopal Church, so this category likely includes some churches that are Anglican but not Episcopal. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlady:, does this mean you would have supported renaming Category:Episcopal churches in the United States to Category:Anglican churches in the United States? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Rather, I believe that we need to create a new set of container categories for Anglicanism in the United States, to include the Episcopal Church and the U.S. elements of the Anglican realignment and other non-Episcopal Anglican groups. The category Category:Episcopal churches in the United States is defined as containing churches affiliated with the Anglican denomination Episcopal Church (United States), and it is linked to other categories specific to that denomination. That denominational category structure is entirely valid. The problem is that there are Anglican churches and denominational organizations that aren't Episcopal, such as Reformed Anglican Church, Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Non-Episcopal Anglican churches can be expected to show up as "Anglican stubs," but they should not be treated as "Episcopal stubs." --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I can't see that there's any good reason not to match the naming of a stub category to its non-stub parent, even when we are dealing with ENGVAR issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. This is the name of the denomination. Episcopalian might be an alternative, but one would have to start by renaming the articles (many of them). However, they are part of the Anglican Communion (at least at present) and parents should not be renmed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping Orlady's contribution in mind, would splitting into Episcopal and Anglican be an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few days ago I took a stab at doing that by creating Category:Anglicanism in the United States, which I believe was a needed addition to the category hierarchy -- to match the global categories and because not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians. Your note here reminded me that I needed to continue populating that category -- and I also created Category:Anglican churches in the United States -- and I placed this stub category into that new parent category (I also left in the Episcopal churches category). Since I have never been either an Anglican or a scholar of religion, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to do an authoritative job of organizing the Anglicanism category into subcategories. Other participants in this discussion should take a look at what I've done and see how it affects your opinion on the category name. (Also, if you think I made mistakes in category structure or categorization of specific items, PLEASE fix my errors!) --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 26 June 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.

Baseball player-managers[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: moved. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each player-manager is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like Category:Singer-songwriters. The parent category is correctly hyphenated per the guideline: Category:Player-coaches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not a valid use of an endash. SFB 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Inappropriate use of endash. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 29 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_21&oldid=1074813620"