Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Category:Cultural depictions of people[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 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which needs a purge due to extreme misuse. While it's valid in principle as a container for the subcategories that it contains, and the usage note states that "This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people", the problem here is that it's often directly applied to random individual films and television series and characters — but virtually every single film or television series or play or novel that exists at all, and every single character within any of them, is by definition a "cultural depiction of people", making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category. (For example, The Nanny and Everybody Loves Raymond and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, which have been filed here, are not somehow more defined by being "cultural depictions of people" than, say, The Big Bang Theory or Kim's Convenience or The West Wing, which have not.) And further to that, I've also already caught at least one example of a real person being filed here, on the trivial basis that somebody once played him in a film — but since a lot of notable people have been portrayed on film, filing real people here on that basis is also a recipe for extreme indiscriminacy. This is not a good basis for a content category, because it doesn't represent a point of distinction between the things that have been filed here and similar things that haven't — it's a valid parent for the subcategories, but it should not contain a random and arbitrary selection of individual works or characters. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An awful lot of the problems would be solved by renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of real individual people. I don't see a problem with say Rubens (film) being in a subcat, but clearly dramas about fictional characters don't belong, nor social/anthropological documentaries etc etc. Plus a clearer category note, & repeating for the subcats. Is this old discussion partly to blame? The current category note is certainly part of the problem:
This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people.
For works which are essentially based on real people, see Category:Works based on real people.
  • This used to be much better, before the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support containerization per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 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:Syrian territories[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) 14:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague concept with no clear definition. The Syrian territories article was recently deleted following AfD. The place for any territory in Syria would be Category:Geography of Syria. Place Clichy (talk) 15:50, 17 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:Vicenza Calcio[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. Timrollpickering 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The original club "Vicenza Calcio" (historically "L.R. Vicenza") was folded. But at the same time L.R. Vicenza Virtus was founded (relocated from another city) as a legitimate successor (by acquiring the assets of the original club) which covered on the same article. The category name should follow the change of the WP:article title in this case Matthew_hk tc 12:46, 17 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 death[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 19:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC and the subcategories are entirely unrelated. All three subcategories are already somewhere else in the tree of Category:Death so there is no need to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is incredibly silly, particularly because it directly parents Category:Dead people — by that standard, every single person who has ever existed and ever will exist is "associated with death", which makes this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category that scopes down to eventually contain every single article we have about any human being. Death is already well-categorized for in other ways, so there's no inherent need for this. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are all dead in the end. Rathfelder (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For as in Adam all die, even so in Wikipedia should this category be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 21 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:George P. Shultz[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 19:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only four members, including the main article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 17 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:Alabama State Senators[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 to "state senators". Timrollpickering 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalizing "State Senator" here is incorrect. An alternative option would be a move to a Members of the Alabama State Senate.

Most of the other states should be similar; New York, Georgia, and Washington may have disambiguation issues, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature (with state senators), and some states may have "State" in the official name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – yes, we should fix over-capitalization here and other places per MOS:JOBTITLES. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – nice work putting this together, and this is definitely a case of overcapitalization. Question: Is there a good reason for the redundancy for Georgia and Washington? Bradv 03:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Georgia, while Politics of Georgia (country) doesn't mention a Senate it could theoretically have one at some point in the future. Washington may not need it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the federal senators are categorized "United States Senators from x", there's no confusion there. I suggest this may be an example of consistency overriding readability, and I support shortening the Georgia and Washington nominations. Bradv 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's considered standard practice on Wikipedia that categories related to Georgia the US state have to be disambiguated to prevent confusion with Georgia the country, and categories related to Washington have to be disambiguated to prevent confusion with DC. The fact that some individual Georgia-state or Washington-state categories might not have their own personal conflicts with Georgia-Tbilisi or Washington DC categories is irrelevant, because the Georgia-state and Washington-state category trees also have to be internally consistent from top to bottom — if we let these go undabbed just because Georgia-Tbilisi and Washington DC don't have senates, then people who don't already know where they're located won't be able to rationally predict their locations. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Sensible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - oppose alt rename suggested in comments for Georgia and Washington, as a) the US state is not the primary topic (as seen here - Georgia (U.S. state) & Georgia (country) and Washington (state)); and b) for WP:CONSISTENCY with the parent category Category:Georgia (U.S. state) & all Georgia (U.S. state) sub-categories and Category:Washington (state) and all Washington (state) sub-categories. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative - The Members of X State Senate formulation is the best way to resolve the endless debate. It is a formulation that everyone can agree should be capitalized. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: over-capitalization is a scourge; lowercase senator matches NOAD and AP style guide. —LinkTiger (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, overcapitalization. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative - I support Blueboar's idea of ""The Members of X State Senate" as it does remove ambiguity. However, I am not opposed to the proposed fix either. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original nomination, 48 more concise category names and 2 longer category names is better than the other way around. But obviously the alternative is better than leaving as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change of capitalisation. However, I lean towards the alternative Members of X State Senate or Senators in X State Senate, to ensure that this does not pick up members of the U.S. Congress by mistake. I am inclined to want to retain the dab for Georgia for consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_17&oldid=871688406"