Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:Filmed accidental deaths[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is rarely, if ever, a WP:DEFCAT. Many, in fact most modern incidents happen to be somehow filmed (before, during, or after the incident). No evidence how this in any way meets the requirements of policy; in fact seems to be actively contributing to WP:OVERCAT issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the articles are about incidents where some people died, rather than individual people or animals who died in front of a camera. The rest of the Category:Filmed deaths tree should be deleted for the same reason, and most cases can be covered in other categories, such as Category:Deaths onstage. Category:Filmed deaths in sports should be upmerged to Category:Deaths in sport. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have viewed WP:OVERCAT as ridiculous for the last decade or so, since Wikipedia suffers from undercategorized articles and broken category trees. However, the filmed record of a death has rarely been a main topic in these articles. I doubt if it was ever defining for the vast majority of the cases involved. Dimadick (talk) 02:31, 6 June 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:Vocal jazz musicians[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: limited manual merge, i.e. just remove articles that are already in a by nationality category (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm really not too clear on what the intended distinction is between a "vocal jazz musician" and a "jazz singer" in this context -- in theory, I suppose there's a distinction between being a jazz singer and being a non-singing instrumentalist who performs in a jazz singer's band, but that's not how the category is actually being used: everybody here is a singer, and it's categorized as a subcategory of Category:Singers. But since vocal jazz is defined by the presence of singing, and there's no discernible phenomenon of jazz which features vocals yet somehow isn't "vocal jazz" despite the presence of vocals, there's no real need for two separate categories here.
Note that most people here are already categorized as "[Nationality] jazz singers", and so should simply be removed from the category rather than being transferred to the target, but I'm proposing merger rather than deletion just in case there are any stragglers who aren't already in any subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 1 June 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:Aftermath of the Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Aftermath of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Category:Medieval Tunisian people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Medieval Tunisian people

Category:Television pilots[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. There was no consensus to delete, so the proposed rename is carried. Articles about failed pilots will need to be moved to other categories such as Category:Television pilots not picked up as a series‎. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note on follow-up: I have now removed/recategorised those that were not picked up as a series, and expanded the stated purpose of Category:Television pilots within series to include non-premiere pilots e.g. the Star Trek ones mentioned below. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the television episodes in these categories are the first episodes of a television series (series premiere) but many do not fit the definition of a television pilot (a test episode to sell a TV series), specifically if the pilot wasn't the first episode or if the television series was commissioned without a pilot. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably won't matter, but the nomination dates March 20 while this is the page for March 19. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I understand pilots are test versions that are often not broadcast, so that they are not premieres. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how Category:Television pilots and its subcats do not end up including every first episode of every television series. Which I would think would be a hindrance to navigation. Maybe the usage of television pilot in categorisation needs to be restricted to pilots which were not also series premieres. - jc37 04:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and alt rename to Category:Pilots of cancelled American television series etc., per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If used, it would have to be "Television pilots of cancelled American television series". Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The first episode of a television series to be broadcast is not necessarily always the "pilot" per se — the "pilot" is a "proof of concept" episode that may or may not ever actually be broadcast to or seen by the general public (and even if it is, it still might not be as the first episode.) So I don't see a need to categorize television episodes for their purported pilot status, especially given how often the word "pilot" gets misused to mean "first broadcast episode" regardless of whether it was actually a proper pilot or not, and thus things categorized here may not actually be true pilots at all. Failed pilots that get burned off as standalone television specials might be notable as specials, but are not notable as pilots per se; pilots that do get broadcast as an actual episode of the series are notable as episodes of that series, but are not notable as pilots per se; and pilots that don't get broadcast (whether because the series never got picked up at all or because the pilot was never actually broadcast as part of the series run) are profoundly unlikely to ever be notable at all — so I don't see the value of categorizing for pilot status. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me the question is, is a category for the first episode of television series worth keeping? I'm conflicted here as I can see valid points to have a category for the first episode of a series (and for the same reasons, one for the last episode) as those types of episode do tend to get a lot of research and academic discord around them. However, is our category system used by those people? That I don't know. Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and makes sense since not all series premieres are pilots necessarily. Some pilots are series premieres but can also but never aired episodes or even later episodes. "Pilot" has a more specific definition.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question has not been answered why we would have a special category for first episodes in case those first episodes aren't special at all but just part of a series. Only failed pilots are special. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination Debut episodes serve as introductions to the audience, but may be quite different from the pilot. Star Trek: The Original Series famously had two pilots (The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before, while the debut episode was a far more conventional story: The Man Trap. Dimadick (talk) 02:42, 6 June 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:War drama films[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. ✗plicit 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per the rationale agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 14#Category:American Western (genre) drama films. There are no criteria for inclusion other than arbitrary and subjective application. Usage of the categories is completely ambiguous because, while some of the articles mention the word "drama", the vast majority do not. The point is that, apart from documentaries and some propaganda releases, all war films are dramas. We can accept such cross-genres as the comedy war film or the romantic war film or the science fiction war film as distinct offshoots of the main war film genre because comedy, romance and science fiction are genres in their own right, but drama is not. These categories are superfluous and present an unnecessarily difficult maintenance task. Deletion is not an option and upmerges are needed. A good point made at the Western drama CfD is that not every interaction and permutation of genre needs a category. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I originally created this category with the mind of Allmovie's definition of the genre "A type of drama set against the backdrop of war, focusing on how the larger conflict affects and/or threatens human existence in the story. Less action-packed than traditional combat films and containing touches of melodrama, this type of film usually takes place in one of two settings. Dramas set close to the front -- Paths of Glory, Come and See, and All Quiet on the Western Front -- focus attention on the way soldiers or civilizations cope with the threat of death and destruction. Films set back at home either during or after the conflict -- Hope and Glory, Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives -- generally study how society manages daily realities during times of war" I don't know how consistent this is across any genre theory, but generally speaking, it probably is not. I have no real push to keep it unless others can keep it together with more sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andrzejbanas. Actually, it isn't your original that's the problem. As with so many others, including the Westerns categories which were deleted last year, the issue is the indiscriminate creation of sub-categories by User:Sc2353. Most of them are SMALLCATS with little hope of expansion and the way they are utilised is both arbitrarily and subjectively. NGS Shakin' All Over 16:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this, I think there is a case for retaining both Category:War drama films and Category:War drama film stubs so I've removed those two from the proposal. As I've said, the original and it's stub collection are not the problem. The issue is the indiscriminate creation of an unnecessary mass of country and date categories that are being applied subjectively and, with the possible exception of the American and British ones, will never amount to anything other than SMALLCATs. I've left the lost films one in as a SMALLCAT. NGS Shakin' All Over 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator's rationale is fundamentally undermined by his argument that "Drama" is not a legitimate genre. The American Film Institute clearly disagrees. War drama films are a legitimate genre with a substantial number of exponents. There may be a legitimate argument for upmerging some of the decade and country based categories based on how sparsely populated they are, but by proposing to merge Category:War drama films into Category:War films this suggests that the nominator is seeking to eradicate the sub-genre as a category altogether, rather than just tidying up sub-categories. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drama is not a genre that can be used in alliance with another genre because the only non-drama films are documentaries, news films, some propagandas and the like. Whether you are discussing war, historical, biopic, romance, disaster, horror, sci-fi, whatever – they are all dramas. You appear to think that the laziness of sites like AFI, BFI, IMDb, etc. in naming drama as their genre parameter is "legitimate". If a film is clearly a mixture of war and romance, then it is a war romance and not merely a drama. If a film is clearly a mixture of horror and sci-fi, then it is a sci-fi horror and not merely a drama. Anyway, having further considered the response by Andrzejbanas, I've removed his original category from the proposal (see above) because the excessive and subjectively applied date and country subs are the issue, just as they were for the Westerns project. NGS Shakin' All Over 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator hasn't given adequate thought to the distinction between a war drama film and a war comedy film — but war comedy films also very much exist, which means it is not true that all war films are automatically drama films. Romantic comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all romantic films are automatically drama films. Horror comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all horror films are automatically drama films. Science fiction comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all science fiction films are automatically drama films. And on and so forth.
    In the real world, we do directly apply "drama" as a straight genre label for films that aren't comedies, so the category system does need to be able to distinguish "war drama" films from "war comedy" films, because it is simply not true that all war films are automatically war drama films by definition.
    No prejudice against individual renomination if there are any categories in the list that are problematic on WP:SMALLCAT grounds instead, but I'm not spelunking to find out if there actually are any — but a mass batch merger on these grounds, no. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drama is not the sibling of comedy but the parent. Any film or stage play which employs role-playing actors is a drama. While comedy and tragedy were the original two drama genres, there are now several more including romance, sci-fi, horror and so on. Drama is an umbrella term for all genres. So, while war comedy or war romance or war sci-fi are true cross-genres which can comfortably interact, war drama is not because one is a part of the other and the term is illogical. NGS Shakin' All Over 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you may think about the way the words should be used, Wikipedia goes with and acts based on the way words actually are used. Regardless of what the technical definition of drama may be, the actual real-world usage is that comedy is fiction that is funny, while drama is fiction that is not funny — and since that's the real world usage, that's the Wikipedia usage too, because Wikipedia goes by real world usage. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"comedy is fiction that is funny, while drama is fiction that is not funny" The intention of the creators has more to do with the genre, than whether the subject matter is genuinely funny. The main plot of The Acharnians involves a pacifist who is threatened with violent death by a lynch mob consisting of war veterans. The funny part is that the play involves a parody of Euripides's tragedies. The main plot of The Wasps involves an attempt to cure the main character from his obsession with trials, but the result is turning him into a violent drunk. The article on the play points out that the character actually displays realistic traits for an addict. The funny part is the implication that Athens was full of such men. Dimadick (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):Any fictionalised portrayal is dramatised, but that is clearly distinct from how Drama is treated as a genre in a modern sense. Pretty much every databases/catalog I have ever come across accepts Drama as distinct genre. For example, the AFI Catalog classifies Citizen Kane as a "drama", Psycho as a "horror" and Casablanca as a "romance". While there are some minor variations this is pretty much the standard approach. The British Film Institute also classify Citizen Kane as a drama. It is you prerogative to disagree, but this is the standard approach taken by databases and catalogs also academics who write on the subject of genre. Wikipedia has to reflect published writing on genre. As editors it is not in our gift to diverge from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of these categories have CFD tags on them announcing this discussion except one parent category which I believe means that discussion could procedurally be closed. Have the category creators all been informed of this discussion? These are basic steps that are taken in initiating any deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if the primary problem is that some of the articles mention the word "drama", while the vast majority do not, then the likely solution is to purge articles that don't. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All categories have now been tagged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Drama is a a genre, see Drama (film and television). But honestly, most war films deal with characters who risk getting killed or go through a version of their personal hell. I don't see much of a difference between a "war film" and a "war drama". Even some of the war comedies tend towards black comedy, with plenty of torment for the characters involved and a decent body count. Dimadick (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black comedies are still comedies, thus upholding a genuine distinction between "war drama" and "war comedy". Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to remove "drama" from the names, per pretty clear information at Drama_(film_and_television)#War_drama and War film. In the comments above, it appears to me that I may be seeing a fair bit of personal opinion/ WP:OR injected into the belief in how "drama" should used in this case. - jc37 08:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a bit confused by this comment. Those editors in favor of retaining the category have advanced their rationales based on reliable sources. Allmovie have "war drama" listed as a legitimate sub-genre. Taking the The Big Parade as an example, the American Film Institute have the primary genre down as a "Drama", and the sub-genre down as "World War I"—note that the proposal here would actually leave our categorization of The Big Parade at odds with the AFI. I don't see how we have injected "personal opinion" into this debate. It seems to me that "War drama" is regarded as a legitimate sub-genre by authoritative sources. If your point is wider than that, that films should only be categorized by the primary genre as opposed to the sub-genre then that would have implications for many other sub-genres on Wikipedia, such as Category:Psychological thriller films, Category:Supernatural horror films and Category:Romantic comedy films. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because "war drama" is a valid film labeling that is used by reliable sources. See Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily, plus reviews using the term. Per WP:CATEGORY, we want to categorize films by essential (e.g., defining) characteristics, so if reliable sources characterize certain films as war dramas, then I find that a credible category to have on Wikipedia. No issue with excluding specific uses of this category if no reliable source has called a war film a "war drama", either because it is more action or comedy-oriented. EDIT: In addition, for navigational purposes, readers who go to Category:Drama films by genre will have access to war dramas as well as other kinds of dramas. It does not appear that editors involved with deleting Category:American Western (genre) drama films considered Western dramas as a sub-genre of drama films and thus deprived category-using readers of a potential subset of drama films. It should be brought back. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 4 August 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:Christian counselors and psychologists[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 Category:Christian counselors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally classify by religion and occupation, there's no Category:Christians by occupation, is this WP:DEFINING? Le Deluge (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pastoral counseling and Christian counseling seem to be a thing though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor Le Deluge said "We don't normally classify by religion and occupation". This is correct and this is proper. But there are a number of categories that include religion, such as "Category:Muslim poets" and "Category:Hindu ascetics". For these occupations, the religion is important. Wikipedia does not have a category labeling accountants by religion, such as "Muslim accountants" or "Hindu accountants". But when the religion of the people is integral to the occupation, then I believe it is justified to include the religion in the category. The category "Christian counselors and psychologists" is about people whose Christian beliefs are integral to their occupation. I hope my logic is clear and acceptable. Pete unseth (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Christian counselors. I looked at all three articles in the category. All relate to Christians engaged in counselling and approaching the topic specifically from a Christian point of view. In some cases this involves rejecting the practises of secular psychology. This is quite different from psychologists who happen also to be Christians, though on a topic like this, I very much doubt whether any Christian will approach the discipline in quite the same way as a secular person. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per Peterkingiron, and per article titles mentioned earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the category, I have no objection to the shorter name of the category. Should I implement the change? Pete unseth (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, an uninvolved editor should close the discussion and implement it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 9 June 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:Punjabi Artists Discography[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, but we don't categorise discographies by ethnicity only by nationality, and Punjab crosses an international border. These should be either in Category:Discographies of Indian artists or Category:Discographies of Pakistani artists. Le Deluge (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Is this a linguistic category? Punjabi is spoken in both halves of the state. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only actual works are categorized by language, not discographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 3 June 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:Leisure activity vehicles[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My searches suggest that this "leisure activity vehicle" term is exclusively used by Groupe PSA, either as a generic term to group closely related products from their different brands together or as a marketing euphemism for "passenger van", with What Car? noting that the "leisure activity vehicle" term is unusual. Looking at sources regarding the types of vehicle that appear in the category shows that they are almost always referred to as "vans", "people carriers", or "MPVs" (eg. Auto Express, Car Magazine, Irish News, Independent, Royal Automobile Club, the I, Top Gear). The Scottish Farmer provided one of the few cases of the term being used which didn't seem to be pulled from a PSA press release, and even then they note that it's synonymous with "multi-purpose vehicle". The closest thing I can establish to a WP:COMMONNAME for this subcategory of small passenger vans would be "van with windows", and even that seems somewhat spurious. Given that PSA have used this "leisure activity vehicle" term to refer to a related selection of vehicles this isn't quite a case of WP:ONEDAY, and it's possible that this term is a translation of one which is more commonly used in a language other than WP:ENGLISH (possibly French), but in WP:ENGLISH it does not seem to be widely applied. Most if not all of the vehicles here are already in other categories like "Category:Compact MPVs" or "Category:Minivans" or just "Category:Vans" anyway so it seems to be largely redundant. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 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:Sports competitions in Novosibirsk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Sports competitions in Novosibirsk

Category:Alpha-lactones[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Alpha-lactones

Fictional locations of Disney[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Fictional locations of Disney

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_1&oldid=1109723731"