Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8[edit]

Category:Jamaica Racetrack[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Same category, different name. HugoHelp (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2022 (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:Wikipedians on Twitter[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. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 12#Category:Wikipedians who use Twitter * Pppery * it has begun... 20:57, 8 January 2022 (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:Naturalised tennis players of Italy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 23#Category:Naturalised tennis players of Italy

Category:Film remakes 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Apropos of below, this parent category is also unclear in a similar way. Nardog (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2022 (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.

Film remakes 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: rename. @Nardog: please get ready to re-home e.g. Category:Indian remakes of foreign films and its subcats e.g. Category:Indian remakes of American films. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category:American film remakes includes remake films based on American films. The remake need not necessarily be an American film, but one first parses "American film remakes" as American films that are remakes, not remakes of American films.

Understandably, members of some of these categories seem to be mixed so we might need to clean them up (perhaps that's a WP:SQLREQ). We might want to also recreate the current names as categories based on the remakes' countries of origin. Nardog (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A an American film that is a rename of a Turkish film would be in Category:Remakes of Turkish films and the relevant American year film category. The current titles are very unclear about their scope and we don't need to recreate them based on the country of origin as the current system is enough. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the above comments. Makes sense. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:56, 10 January 2022 (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:Mystics from Norwich[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 in 500 years Rathfelder (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy for the merge, although I'm not sure Julian would be too pleased to be removed from her secluded place and put in with a lot of other people....Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2022 (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:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent[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 both as proposed. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename, the proposed name is less ambiguous, the current name might wrongly suggest they are foreign agents in other countries to the benefit of Russia. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- I think that was my suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Better solution indeed! --Just N. (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2022 (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:1900s LGBT-related mass media[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:1900s LGBT-related mass media and delete Category:1900s LGBT-related films. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Likewise there was no "LGBT-related mass media" in the 1900s. The first LGBT periodical intended for a mass audience was Die Freundschaft in 1919. (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 8 January 2022 (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:1890s LGBT-related mass media[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. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There was no "LGBT-related mass media" published in the 1890s, with the possible exception of that already categorized in the literature category. Neither Der Eigene, which only sold through subscription, nor the Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, intended for a limited scientific audience, were "mass media". (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 8 January 2022 (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/2022_January_8&oldid=1073566009"