Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:Gender identity in the military[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 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category for some reason puts together Intersex people, Transgender people and Cross-dressers under the term "gender identity". That does not seem appropriate to me; so far Wikipedia seem to have used "gender identity" for our military articles to be another term to cover Transgender topics. Cross-dressing is not about gender identity nor is intersex really, its a physical condition. ★Trekker (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2020 (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:YouTube Play Button recipients[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 18:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale:: WP:NONDEFINING, fails WP:OCAWARD. These categories for YouTube Creator Awards are not about actual awards in the normal sense of a panel making a critical judgement about artistic merit. Instead, they are markers of hitting a certain number of subscribers, from 100,000 for silver to 100 million for Red Diamond.
YouTube does present a physical award at some levels, and does reserve the right not to award a channel which has passed a threshold ... but essentially this is just a number count rather than an artistic judgement. These are the only number-based, host-issued awards in Category:Web award winners.
These measures are transient, and they are similar to the circulation figures of newspapers or the audience share figures for TV and radio broadcasters. For good reason, we don't categorise TV and radio on that basis, nor do we categorise films by the widely reported measure of box office receipts; instead we have lists, in Category:Lists of highest-grossing films.
The sheer size of some of these categories underlines their lack of WP:Definingness. This is an encyclopedia, not a replication of the reward-and-retention schemes devised by social media companies.
Note that these categories are now populated by Template:Infobox YouTube personality, since this edit[1] a few hours ago by User:Terasail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non defining. No one strongly connects a youtuber with the subscriber count. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2020 (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:Alumni by christ university[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 rename C2C to Category:Christ University alumni. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammatically flawed category. I'm not sure what the proper formatting is for this sort of thing. I see Category:Harvard University alumni, but also Category:Alumni of the University of Aberdeen, so I'll leave it up to you category experts. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Much obliged, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jadan.r.jaleel: I moved your comment from an unrelated discussion on September 7 to here, although it is not clear to me what you are trying to advocate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2020 (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:Long Beach Records 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article about the label was deleted, so this goes as well. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2020 (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:Prophets of Islam[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 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the purpose of this category is the same as its parent category, both have the same main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No real reason to have both.★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune to the various pre-Muhammad prophets, the articles XXX in Islam should be categorized, not various old and new testament figures who (also) happen to be considered prophets in a religion that long post-dated their (earthly) lives. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2020 (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 by city in California[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 renamed Timrollpickering (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This container cat contains sub-cats of the form "People from cityname, California". The sub-cats clearly say what they mean – that the people were born or are otherwise "from" that city. This cat, though, uses the word "in" making it sound like it's for people that reside in California, which is apparently untrue. Though I can see that it can be parsed as "People, by (city in California)", that does not then indicate anything about it being where the people are from, as opposed to residing, buried in, etc.
This would apply to the other "People by city in state" siblings, and maybe other parent/grandparent trees, too.
As an additional, or maybe alternative, suggestion, my initial confusion may have been prevented by a short explanation of the purpose of the category at the top, like that at Category:People by city in the United States. (Yes, I also now realize that it's a container-only and articles should not use it, but I still think a one-liner is good to have.)
Cheers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, there does seem to be some divergence from the "For by city in Bar" convention. Category:Categories by city in California is consistently "Foo by city in Bar", but for example, Category:Categories by city in Japan is an assortment or "Foo by city in Japan" and "Foo in Japan by city" ... and Category:Categories by city in Germany is mostly "Foo in Germany by city".
I suggest an RFC at WT:CATP to establish a single convention to use globally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 6 September 2020 (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:Peacebuilding institutions[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 to Category:Peace organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Option A, merge to parent Category:Peace organizations as it is not very clear how the categories are different. Option B, rename to Category:International peace organizations, keeping the category but with a somewhat different scope. This alternative scope seems to fit most articles in the category well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Option A There's a big difference between institutions created under national and international law and funded from government budgets and sociologically existing as state type structures versus citizens' organisations. The present classification in terms of which articles are categorised in which group is not completely tidy right now, but some cases are always going to be a bit vague, and will have to be debated at the individual articles based on the sources. Citizens' peace organisations often do direct action (such as street protests, boycotts) and lobbying as well as sending volunteers into areas of armed conflict or coordinate with local citizens' groups in the area of conflict. State institutions (like federal/national departments, ministries, agencies) are a different type of organisation to grassroots organisations. State institutions are normally not defined as democratic; citizens' organisations are normally required under law to have annual general meetings, constitutions/statutes, votes for leaders, and so on.
Oppose Option B because it would confuse state institutions with citizens' organisations.
A possible Rename - Option C to Category:International peacebuilding institutions would seem reasonable to me; this would keep the separation between state institutions and non-state organisations. (Informally, both are similar sociological things, but the difference between state and non-state institutions/organisations seems widely accepted.) The institutions listed are, as far as I know, not much involved in solving existing conflicts, which is why "peacebuilding" is appropriate - these are involved in longer term activities to stop armed conflicts before they occur (or escalate) or to stop them from repeating. (The UN Security Council can, in principle, authorise armed interventions to stop existing conflicts, but the UNSC is only one component of the UN in general.) Boud (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Option A for now. This is a vague category. The parent isn't too clear either but merging would be a significant improvement over the current situation. We need a root cause discussion to make sense of it all and then a procedural keep can be fair, so I did consider it, yet nominator suggests a real improvement (as an option), making this the best way forward. Improving Category:Peace organizations will be complex and will meet opposition. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to gidonb's comments: To make the category less "vague", I have clarified that "institutions" refers to intergovernmental organizations and shifted three non-governmental peace organisations from Category:Peacebuilding institutions to Category:Peace organizations.
A merger would lead to confusion — dropping all distinction between intergovernmental structures and grassroots structures. These are fundamentally different types of organisations. Intergovernmental structures — the institutions of Category:Peacebuilding institutions — claim democratic legitimacy only indirectly, via the states that created them (many of which claim to be democratic, some that are clearly very undemocratic); grassroots organisations claim to be democratic, participatory, directly organised by "the people". Intergovernmental institutions (for peacebuilding or other purposes) are necessarily bureaucratic, with state and suprastate budgets, and heavy legal and administrative foundations. Grassroots peace organisations are, in principle, less bureaucratic, often exist as de facto networks with only local groups existing under national legislation for citizens' groups. Grassroots peace organisations' budgets are generally 10s or 100s or 1000s of times lower than those of intergovernmental institutions. The distinction is strong and generally easily supported by the sources. Boud (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now/Option A I understand the distinction Boud is trying to make above but the current titles don't convey inter-governmental vs. grass roots, at least to me. RevelationDirect (talk)
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:Sadogatake stable wrestlers[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. MER-C 16:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should contain the word sumo for clarity P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 20:06, 5 September 2020 (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:Images of iGnIfAoNrTmEaStSiEvSe uploaded by Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel[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 delete WP:G1, the category name is not designed to be informative. File uploads by any user can be found by filtering their contributions using the namespace File, in this case [2]. – Fayenatic London 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful categorization, and possible WP:BLP violation with the claim that depicted people in the images are Giaantesses. Whpq (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2020 (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:Muslim saints from the Old Testament[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 Category:Muslim saints from the Old Testament to Category:Hebrew Bible people in Islam; Category:Muslim female saints from the Old Testament to Category:Women of the Hebrew Bible in Islam; and Category:Muslim saints from the New Testament to Category:New Testament people in Islam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created a few days ago, but the name doesn't quite fit. There are three alternative suggestions on the talk page: Should this category instead be called Islamic figures in the Old Testament? "Saint" or "Wali" typically refers to people who came after the prophet Muhammad. (User:Vice regent) and "Old Testament" is not an Islamic term. We shouldn't use Christian concepts to name Islamic categories. So I'd suggest Islamic figures from Torah and Psalms or Islamic figures from Tawrat and Zabur. (User:Ibadibam) – Thjarkur (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+ Further thinking about it, why "figures" instead of "people"? The main category is Category:Hebrew Bible people so this category may become Category:Hebrew Bible people in Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: i agree with @Thjarkur:, it should be Islamic figures from Torah and Psalms or Islamic figures from Tawrat and Zabur Because it seems so beautiful and satisfied sentence. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IslamMyLoveMyLife: please revert your recategorization of all articles that were in this category. Undertaking unilateral actions while the discussion is still going on is considered to be disruptive. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Seems to have been made in good faith, probably unnecessary to flood watchlists yet another time if we're going to rename the category anyways) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I have currently reverted my recategorization, but the name Hebrew bible people in Islam is not necessary and i put Category:Muslim saints as a main category, but after i created Category:Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms i recognized Category:Islamic figures as the main category, according to me Category:Islamic figures from the Torah and Psalms is the best solution for it, These Hebrew Bible people are not claimed to be the Christians or Jews in Islam, instead of Muslims, another thing Islam doesn't preach Hebrew Bible of Jews at all. I suggest @Vice regent: to participate in this discussion, who started the idea of renaming on the talk page. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the objection, what you call "Torah and Psalms" is identical to what is being called Hebrew Bible in common language. Also it is not clear why you favour "figures" over "people". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already written that The Jewish beliefs are not preached in Islam at all, If you think that if in your eyes Hebrew Bible is able to named, we should name it Islamic figures from the Hebrew Bible, because Hebrew Bible people in Islam is prejudicial name. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people in this category are Hebrew Bible people about whom Islam may well have different beliefs than Judaism or Christianity. That makes Hebrew Bible people in Islam a perfectly neutral name. In contrast calling them Islamic figures would be prejudicial, as that would suggest these people are claimed by Islam in particular. Also it is still not clear why you favour "figures" over "people". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Isn't Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament prejudicial????? calling them Christians in front of Muslims and Jews, would not be prejudicial??? IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, feel free to nominate that category for renaming. Or better wait until dust has settled down a bit, because you are already involved in too many related discussions right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that IslamMyLoveMyLife thinks that the Bible says Adam and Eve were Christians. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller: The reason which forced me to create these categories was calling them Christians, if we are calling them Christians, then we have to add all of the religious categories, which are venerating them. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where on WP are Adam and Eve called Christians? I don't believe it. That would be as idiotic as calling them early Islamic preachers. Smeat75 (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This whole Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament calling them Christians. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eve wasn't in that category. I have removed Adam, no evidence in the article that Adam is considered a Christian saint.Smeat75 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: still i will request of renaming it from Muslim to Islamic, it is neutral because it is not even calling them Muslims, The term Muslim is used for someone who follows proper Islam. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two suggestions look good to me.VR talk 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thjarkur:: We shouldn't use Christian concepts to name Islamic categories. Not necessarily. If the intent it to explore the intersection between Islam and Christianity (and that's a worthy topic), then this makes sense. What about a category called Category:Figures in both the Bible and the Qur'an? VR talk 01:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are currently discussing Hebrew Bible people, please do not confuse things by bringing up Christianity. Also, why "figures" instead of plain "people"? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck out my suggestion. Regarding "figures", GPinkerton makes a point below that "figures" might be more neutral.VR talk 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above) Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament should not exist, as we have settled on "Hebrew Bible" for this. Those from Deuterocanonical books present a challenge, but that needs to be a separate discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few points: 1.) caution needs exercising in relation to Islam and the New Testament. Some of the figures ("saints") in Islam "from the New Testament" are not drawn from the canonical New Testament at all, but from the expanded Jesus-saga universe, like the Gospel of Thomas and the infancy gospels. 2.) "figures" or "characters" is better when speaking about mythology: we should not really be characterizing Adam and Eve as "people" without heavy qualification. 3.) the formula "ancienttextname character/saint/whatever in religionname" is better than unnecessary categorization of these legendary names as "adjectivalreligionname in the ancienttextname". GPinkerton (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the proposed use of the terms Hebrew Bible and New Testament would result in a misrepresentation of the relationship between the Abrahamic faiths that would be inaccurate at best and offensive at worst. Judaism, Christianity and Islam don't necessarily accept the others' redactions and canonizations of scripture. So while Islamic scholars might hold that there was a Hebrew Bible, they don't necessarily accept the extant Jewish version (which is what we usually mean by Hebrew Bible). The same goes with New Testament or Gospels: there is no consensus what precise text is meant by Injil, except that the four books that constitute the Christian canon aren't it. So just as we avoid using Old Testament to refer to Jewish scripture, we should also avoid using Jewish and Christian terms to define Islamic concepts. Ibadibam (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a category of concepts, this is a category of people. Unilaterally claiming these people for one religion while they weren't originally depicted as adherents of that religion is a matter of WP:POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category members are figures, yes; the categories' inclusion criteria are defined by religious concepts, which should be internally consistent to the religion in question. As I understand it, Muslims regard their versions of these figures to come from texts that predate those revisions canonized as Jewish and Christian scripture, and thus the figures in question aren't "from" Jewish or Christian scripture persay. For POV purposes, I suggest our categories reflect the conceptualizations of these figures that are particular to each religion: Christian terms for Christian categories, Islamic terms for Islamic categories, and so on. Ibadibam (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the inclusion criteria are not just based on religious concepts, as it concerns an intersection of literature (Hebrew Bible) and religion (Islam). If at any point of time literature will be discovered about these same people that is older than the Hebrew Bible we will have a different discussion, but not until then. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are kept/renamed, the only figures categorized should be those of the XXX in Islam, or those in the Islamic name form (Ibrahim rather than Abraham). Otherwise we have many figures of the Old and New Testaments, that can have tons of categories on which versions of Christianity, Islam, Bahaism, and other religions consider them to be prophets, saints, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might amend that to include any article that includes an "X in Islam" section. Ibadibam (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into one Category:Hebrew Bible figures in Islam per GPinkerton and Marcocapelle. "In Islam" is sufficient and gives wide room for every kind of mention, saint-ish veneration (which is abhorred by many Islamic schools) etc. of any figure from the Hebrew Bible (please read "from" in a neutral, not necessarily Luxenbergian way), regardless of their historicity or even humanness (i.e. non-human figures like Gabriel#Islam = Jibril). If it's notable enough to mention such things in the respective article, a category for them is justified. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2020 (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 and television series realated to Battle of Karbala[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 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT: the category contains one film and one television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom If these were depictions of the battle, it would be a valid category. But a "related" category is too vague. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2020 (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:Hasan ibn Ali[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Category:Hasan ibn Ali

Category:Royal Photographic Society[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) 23:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That is what is in the category. Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF / WP:OCAWARD. As usual with plain memberships, it is not defining for the articles in the category. Besides in many articles the society is not even mentioned. Finally in other articles it appears that the society has granted an award, while membership is not mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Society membership is not a good basis for a category. Recipients of awards from the Society might be the subject of list articles in that on the Society or one on the award. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept proposed change -- Royal Photographic Society as a category is meaningless. Category:Royal Photographic Society members makes much more sense as suggested by Rathfelder, especially if this membership is (or was) a significant achievement. Alternative would be lists of Royal Photographic Society members and of Royal Photographic Society awardees (as suggested by Peterkingiron). If articles listed in the current category are not appropriate (e.g. not members or not received an award) they could be removed. --MerielGJones (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marco/Peter, but recategorize the subcat and the eponymous article if necessary. Listification could also be considered, but in many cases (e.g. Ridley Scott) there's no mention in the article text. DexDor (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2020 (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:Prophets of the New Testament[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, category based on a non-defining characteristic, apart from John the Baptist and Anna the Prophetess it is very unusual to refer to New Testament people as "prophets". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It really is not as unusual as you claim, if you'd take a look at Prophets of Christianity. Acts 13:1 alone mentions five people as prophets and teachers, several of whom we know little about other than their designation as prophets. We can also add the Revelation figures (John of Patmos and the Two witnesses), for instance, who are on the map because of their prophetic output. The most apt category for these figures would be this very category. bibliomaniac15 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Bibliomaniac15's explanation of the category's scope. Dimadick (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There may be argument over which persons qualify. but there are plenty of people identified in NT as prophets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we have to clarify who considers these figures as prophets? Some Christianity, but perhaps not Bahaism, Islam, and others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2020 (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:Technology manufacturing companies established in 2014[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 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category for 2014 is an "orphan" category for one year only. The category articles could be upmerged to the two parent categories, but the category Category:Electronics companies established in 2014 is already a subcategory of both parent categories and serves the same purpose as this category. Hugo999 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2020 (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:Cultural depictions of Edward Norton[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 18:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to misunderstand the broader Category:Cultural depictions of actors; articles in this category are films starring Norton, not depicting him. BD2412 T 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category has been depopulated by other editors. BD2412 T 13:07, 5 September 2020 (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/2020_September_5&oldid=987100668"