Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors[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: no consensus, a broader nominations seems desirable. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's high time that we strongly consider renaming the entire Category:Transgender and transsexual people tree to just Category:Transgender people, due to evolving perceptions of the most appropriate terminologies for trans people -- but listing all of the relevant categories at once is a bigger job than I'm prepared to undertake on my own without assistance. These three categories, however, picked the wrong word to leave out: regardless of where we land on the question of leaving the tree at "transgender and transsexual" or renaming it to just "transgender", there's no valid or acceptable reason for these three subcategories to retain the less appropriate term while ditching the proper one. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. I was going to support this, without prejudice to a wider renaming of Category:Transgender and transsexual people and all its subcats. (I suggest that any such wider change would be best preceded by an RFC. The evolution of terminology in this field is complex and often contested, so in the interests of stability and drama-reduction it would be best to ensure as a broad a consensus as possible for any such change.)
There is potentially an argument that the generally outmoded term "transsexual" has ongoing validity in the particular case of porn, but that argument seem to me to be weak because the boundaries of the term "transsexual" have always been vague.
However, I am opposing because I note that Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors is a subcat of Category:Transgender pornography, whose other subacts are Category:Transsexual pornographic film actors etc. I think that the whole set of trans porn categories (i.e. Category:Transgender pornography + all subacts) should be nominated together, to ensure a consistent outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2018 (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.

Ophir Award winners[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: listify then delete categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect naming format for "winners of film award" categories (weirdly, the category for Best Actress winners is already named in the correct format instead of this one, so no action is required there.) Note that while the first three categories are straightforward, I'm not entirely sure what the correct names for the other categories would be (e.g. is the award named "Best Screenwriter", or "Best Screenplay"?), so would welcome input from somebody with more knowledge about Israeli film than I have — but the existing names are still incorrectly formatted no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Films most certainly are defined by having won their country's top film award: the Oscars, the BAFTAS, the Canadian Screen Awards and many other film awards have such categories, so there's no legitimate reason to deem the Ophirs as less defining of their Best Picture winners than other countries' top film awards are. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Most of the films articles don't mention the award in the lede sentence and many don't mention it in the lede at all. Other things (such as genre, location and language) are much more defining (as well as being less easy to fit in lists). DexDor (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a rule that film articles aren't allowed to throw "award-winning" into the lede sentence. That's a stylistic rule, not a "non-defining" issue — but the lack of that information in the lede sentence cannot mitigate against its status as a defining characteristic if there's a rule against mentioning it in the lede sentence for reasons other than its definingness. And if there are any that are missing a mention of the film's award-winning status in the appropriate place and context, then that should be added. I'm not attached to the keepability of the people categories, which seem remarkably underpopulated for an award that's been around for almost 30 years (and I can't fill them up myself, either, as other than Best Picture itself we're lacking any content about the winners of any other category), but I'm willing to fight to the death for keeping at least the Best Picture category, because no film can ever have any characteristic more defining than winning Best Picture at its national film awards. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMLEDE says "Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence ... and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section.". I don't think that prohibits referring to a specific award in the lede sentence (although it's a little ambiguous) and it certainly doesn't prohibit mentioning it in the lede at all.
In "no film can ever have any characteristic more defining than winning Best Picture at its national film award" you appear to be saying that winning its national film award is more defining than its nationality.  Do you really think that?
Do you think any film that wins the Academy Award for Best Picture ever again gets any coverage after that which doesn't mention its status as a winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture? Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if winning an award was/is one of a films most defining characteristics that doesn't mean it's a good characteristic for categorization as the category structure has to include all film articles (including those yet to receive an award). DexDor (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The overall Category:Films tree has to do that. The branch for award-winning films does not. These two things are not in conflict with each other. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from OCAWARD: "when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic". I'll grant that the people categories are more questionable (although they do exist for the Oscars and the BAFTAs and the Canadian Screen Awards and on and so forth), but winning Best Picture at its country's top-level film awards (Oscars, BAFTAs, Canadian Screen Awards, etc.) most certainly is the single most defining characteristic a film can ever possess at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is your "most certainly ..." statement anything more than your opinion? DexDor (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No film which wins Best Picture at its top-level national film award ever again gets so much as one other piece of coverage after that which fails to mention that distinction. That's the very definition of a defining characteristic, so yes, it is more than "my opinion" — it's a straight fact that's written in stone. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Not really fine to delete now unless wider category is nominated for deletion. The rationale for renaming seems valid in terms of better format. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- This is a classic case of OCAWARD. It can probably be converted into a tabular article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2018 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends[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: Speedy close. This category has been nominated for deletion no less than 8 times in 10 years, most recently a no-consensus outcome in June 2018.
Three months is normally sufficient for a renomination after a no consenus outcome, but a perennial iissue like this is best left for a year. Mild WP:Trout to the nominator @ItsAlwaysLupus, who shoukd have done some WP:BEFORE and explained why they thought a new discussion was needed now and what they thought the previous discusisons had misssed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category/suspected blog-esque fan list. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close: This has been discussed eight times before, the most recent one in June. I'm nthe nominator ot sure the nominator knows this (which would mean that WP:BEFORE has not been followed). In any case, no new argument has been put forward, and this seems to soon for another discussion - even though the last result was no consensus. See Category talk:Footballers' wives and girlfriends. StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2018 (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:Milla Jovovich[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. Timrollpickering 19:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON General Ization Talk 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not every notable person deserves a category.
     — Cwf97 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2018 (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:Angelina Jolie[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/2018 October 5#Category:Angelina Jolie. ℯxplicit 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON General Ization Talk 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Angelina Jolie is one of the most influential actresses and filmmakers of the 21st century. Cwf97 Talk 14:43, 16 September 2018 (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:Johnny Depp[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. Timrollpickering 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. General Ization Talk 15:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not every notable person deserves a category.
     — Cwf97 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2018 (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:Wikipedia categories named after Roman Catholic families[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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't really understand. Doesn't the destination category suffice? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There is no reason to have two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia one is a tracking category used for maintenance purposes, and as such it is hidden from the category list. It provides a flat list of all such categories, whereas Category:Roman Catholic families is hierarchical.
    All the info in my previous para was available to the nominator, who should have done a little checking before nominating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 22 September 2018 (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:Prayers in the Catholic Church[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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was originally called Category:Roman Catholic prayers, and it was requested to be speedily moved to Category:Catholic prayers. This was objected to, and with just one commenter and the nominator it was moved to its present title. But it should not have been a speedy nomination in the first place, even though the original proposal is the best option. It was argued that the main article is Prayer in the Catholic Church, but that is about prayer in general, whereas this is a category of specific prayers. Also, the prayers are not "in the Catholic Church" (whatever that means) but said by Catholics - hence, using "Catholic" as an adjective is the best option here. StAnselm (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, in general, but I am inclined to make an exception for matters concerning liturgy, because that is where you find the one key difference between western and eastern Catholics. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On one level I support the rename, but it's unclear to me what the scope of this is. If it's prayers used in the RC Church, then it's too small and would overlap with other church's categories; if it's prayers of RC origin, well, I think that's better but this would need to be made clear. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert move to original name Category:Roman Catholic prayers, to avoid ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's kind of an archaic assertion on Wikipedia these days. The main conflict now seems to be when "Latin Church" categorisation is actually relevant and when it's not, whereas some propose the adjective "Latin Church" is "Roman Catholic". Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2018 (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.

Treaties[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. Timrollpickering 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, most of these categories only have one or two articles in it, and the treaties in the years of 1200-1500 have largely been categorized by decade anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided that someone checks that each article retains a year category. The case I checked did: it also had 1423 in England and 1423 in France. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.
     — Cwf97 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2018 (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 associated with conflicts of interest[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. Timrollpickering 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, scope of the category is very vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All people are associated with conflicts of interest.Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- In my view only the insider trading category really belongs. The conspiracy theory item is miscategorised. Furthermore we normally expect 5 items for a category and this only has 3. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2018 (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:Found footage (appropriation)[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: speedy close: wrong forum. This nomination was apparently meant for WP:AFD. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Espngeek (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See collage film, Ken Burns effect and Found footage (film technique)

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:Televisión de la Frontera[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. Timrollpickering 19:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article in this two-article category was converted into a redirect. There's no need for this. Upmerge the two articles into Category:Media in Ciudad Juárez and delete. Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 16 September 2018 (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 by year: Domestic women's association football leagues[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; upmerge contents as described. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting (and upmerging where necessary):
Nominator's rationale: These categories by year exist only for four years but with most articles (8) in 2016, with 2013, 2014 & 2015 having only two or three articles each. 2017 (Category:2017 domestic women's association football leagues) is a soft redirect.
Upmerge to categories Category:2015–16 domestic women's association football leagues and possibly Category:2015 domestic association football leagues; and to similar categories for other years. Articles for other years are often in these categories already (though not always consistently); eg for Scottish women’s leagues which extend from 2011 to 2018, see 2011 Scottish Women's Premier League and 2018 Scottish Women's Premier League Hugo999 (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Make senses. Especially since they are underpopulated. Djln Djln (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Will start with the Chinese women’s superleague articles, then the two Scottish league articles.The categories could be made soft redirects. Hugo999 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: This omits the "Women" aspect of the proposal as Category:2015–16 domestic women's association football leagues (say) is in a "women" tree. Hugo999 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (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/2018_September_16&oldid=872070487"