Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2[edit]

Category:Czech cemeteries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only two entries and there's little growth possibility since this category is about Czech cemeteries abroad. The two articles are each about a Czech cemetery in the US. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Merge/Support Both are already well categorized in local cemetery categories as well. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as above. Neutralitytalk 02:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I looked in vain for articles on Bohemian cemeteries elsewhere. It may be that there are Czech expatriate churches with theri own churchyard cemetery, but what we have does not seem enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2015 (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:Treasure troves by country[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: relist (2015 June 2) after resolving the first two issues raised by Seyasirt. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, a treasure trove is essentially a stack of treasures. Brandmeistertalk 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The introduction for Category:Treasure may need to be modified it this gains consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, the concept of treasure trove may be too narrow for separate categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- In UK, Treasure trove is a legal proceeding over the status of a find (law French trover), whether the find is the property of the finder (and/or landowner) or of the crown. In practice in UK today, the finder is compensated, rather than expropriated. How far there are similar laws abroad I do not know. I think the subcategories might be renamed to "treasure found in foo", but I do not think it is useful to have two deparate trees: there will not be enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning merge but there are some issues here. First, Category:Treasures of South Korea doesn't belong here at all: it's along the lines of a UK listed property or a US NRHP listing. Second, treasure trove is misfiled as a UK article when it's actually comprehensive. Third, there are a fair number of articles (all Western Hemisphere and largely US) about reputed treasure troves. I incline to the view that these might want to be kept segregated from articles about actual finds. Seyasirt (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (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:Ensiferum compilation albums[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. MER-C 10:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not needed for a single redirect of a non-notable album to a page which only mentions the album as part of the artist's discography. At best, merge to Category:Ensiferum albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london:. I may be missing something - I am not opposed to categorizing redirects but I can't see any value in having a category that contains *only* redirects. I did note that there were no redirect only cats mentioned at WP:Categorizing redirects, but, I suppose, in theory it might be useful. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2015 (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 with nudity / Category:Nudity in film[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Films with nudity to Category:Nudity in film. It is not clear if there is a consensus to delete since there were two discussions here. It is clear that there is no need to have 2 categories. Once the merge is completed, feel free to start a deletion discussion if it is needed. Do consider a cleanup as suggested below as a first step. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both this and Category:Nudity in film seem to just be lists of films where some sort of nudity is involved (and I'm not sure how the two categories are differentiated). Given the vast scope of this subject, and the trivial usage of nudity in films, I'd say that these were unnecessary. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This "vast scope" is what makes this a viable and non-trivial category. Its a subject of film history with some significance. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you stop any film with the tiniest, most trivial and insignificant bit of nudity getting added to this category? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agreed on the importance of the topic. The two categories should probably be merged. I think both categories are based to some extent on references to nudity within the articles themselves or in the sources cited. Dongord (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terminator 2? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arnold Schwarzenegger arrives naked after travelling through time. Dongord (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does, but it's not important, and isn't (as you suggest) based on "references to nudity within the articles themselves or in the sources cited". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove the Category for Terminator 2, or add a sentence clarifying to the article.Dongord (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category has no real criteria, is a brief glimpse of a naked body enough or must it last on screen for a minimum time? Also there are so many films with some form of nudity that this can never be complete (even if every new film is added). Does it include the vast number of pornographic films available on the internet for example? Dabbler (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The categories for pornographic and erotic films are listed separately at the top, so the list would be limited to nudity in non-erotic/pornographic films. Pornographic films of course should continue to be categorized as such.Dongord (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the category is potentially so large and indiscriminate that it really is of no practical use to anyone seeking a specific type of film. If we must have a category of nudity in films, then it should be a super category with hundreds of sub-categories which actually list the films. Either way none of them will ever be complete and therefore of only limited use. Dabbler (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorizing the films sounds like a good idea, for instance by country or decade.Dongord (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "existing categories" on nudity in film? There is an article, but these seem to be the only two categories.Dongord (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have already been listed: Category:erotic films, Category:pornographic films, Category:sexploitation films, Category:nudity, Category:film censorship, Category:Obscenity controversies, etc. Nudity is not a defining characteristic of Terminator 2, and it perplexes me that someone could possibly think that it belongs in such a category. Something like Nude on the Moon actually is a good example of nudity as a defining characteristic, but that's already covered by the existing categories, such as Category:sexploitation films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the Nudity category to link to individual films would make it harder to locate the other articles and subcategories currently listed in the Nudity category.Dongord (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This cat ignores the guideline at WP:CATDEF "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having..." MarnetteD|Talk 13:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can find ways to overcome problems like this. For instance, the Nudity in Film article can address cases where clarification is needed regarding specific movies. Dongord (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Categorising films without being able to note the type of nudity (showing an ankle is nudity at certain times and places), the frequency, the social mores of the era etc, is just a really bad idea. I was tempted to suggest keeping Category:Nudity in film as a topic cat (listing articles about the topic, and not listing films) per Nudity in film, but it's already covered in Category:Nudity and Category:Film censorship. This would just be an unnecessary intersection of those two. - jc37 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And this really seems like WP:OC#Performers by action or appearance. The performers appear nude. So if we don't categorise the performer by their appearance, then we also shouldn't be categorising their performance by that same appearance! - jc37 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The category Nudity does not seem to used to tag films.Dongord (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly the point. And categories are not "tags", which may be part of the confusion... - jc37 03:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorize, label or link to films then. The Category provides a list, so that people who are researching that topic can locate the items quickly.Dongord (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as being non-defining and trivial. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When the trait isn't listed within the body of the article itself, reliable sources can be found, and references added.Dongord (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge If Kept These are clearly one category. No opinion on whether that category is worth keeping. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody seen naked in a film is not notable. what next, films where characters wear hats? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A useless category. Unless we are going to have complementary categories like Category:Clothes in FilmRathfelder (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all titles to Category:Nudity in film. Guy1890 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and keep Category:Nudity in film. This category should not contain any films and should only contain the high level concept articles about the concept, such as Nudity in film, pornographic film etc. This is pretty much standard procedure, just like how Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom doesn't contain any films. I'm unsure of the of value of Category:Films with nudity because it's so broad – and it's mostly being associated with a more sexual kind of nudity, rather than common forms of nudity like naked babies, bathing, men shaving topless etc. That isn't helpful. Perhaps the three children could be upmerged to the nudity in film category? SFB 13:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered that (as I noted above), but nearly everything we would add is already organised in Category:Nudity and Category:Film censorship. - jc37 17:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is much in the way of "sexual nudity" in the films currently listed in the Category: Films with nudity. It's more artist's models, nudist beaches and the like. The Category: Nudity in film has a few items that might be better grouped in subcategories such as erotic films, eg. I am Curious(Yellow), In the realm of the senses, The Lover, Lust Caution and Nymphomaniac. Dongord (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To deal with the concerns regarding reliable sources, I have recast the films with nudity category as a list, and submitted it as a new draft article for review. In response to NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion above, I made sexploitation films a subcategory of films with nudity, and updated the category labels on each of the sexploitation films that used to be on the list. Dongord (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2015 (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/2015_April_2&oldid=1138408245"