Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 29 October 1 >

September 30[edit]

Category:Continuous pitch instruments[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Category:Continuous pitch instruments

Category:Indonesian contemporary R&B[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 14:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No scheme for Category:Contemporary R&B by nation, too niche, very little content. @Hiddenstranger:―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree, there shouldn't be such a specific category when there is hardly any notable contemporary R&B music in that country anyway hence very little content. No main article for Indonesian contemporary R&B would ever exist. Of the three artists under Category:Contemporary R&B albums by Indonesian artists, only one is sourced as R&B. Hiddenstranger (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, shouldn't the subcategory be nominated too? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overly specific, not many articles to cater to. Kerberous (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GenuineArt (talk) 17:02, 5 October 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:Alumni of women's universities and colleges[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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The target category is more precise given that these are women's colleges. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 2011 March 6#Alumnae of women's universities and colleges which decided on 'alumni' throughout. Oculi (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AlumnAE is grammatically correct as a Latin feminine plural, but most people do not know Latin today, so may be confused. However I note that the term professor emerita is in regular use for women, rather than emeritus (masculine). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per per previous discussion. Gendered versions of words are falling away in English regardless of the rules of the languages they're originally from. Many of the institution have men alumni, either because they ceased to be women only or because they accept men on some programmes or because some alumni subsequently transitioned. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:28, 6 October 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:University of Kyiv, Historical faculty[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 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A good illustration of why we shouldnt use "Faculty" to describe University academics. Rathfelder (talk) 15:37, 30 September 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:Glockenspiel players[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 14:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining metric for any of the listed players. Most are vibraphonists or percussionists that have doubling on glockenspiel as part of their basic skillsets, anyway. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:45, 30 September 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:Monuments and memorials in Hargeisa[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. User:Namiba 14:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom but then reparent and populate the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 1 October 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.

People from caliphates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#People from caliphates

Category:People from the Komi Republic[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in each. Rathfelder (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and similar recent cfds. Oculi (talk) 12:46, 30 September 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:People from Nizhny Novgorod Oblast[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) Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article in each. Rathfelder (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way it has been nominated now will probably result in a "smallcat exception rule" type of objection. In fact the whole tree of Category:People by district in Russia may be upmerged because there are hardly any districts with more than 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but there are 1,096 of them Rathfelder (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, assuming that the other 1000+ categories will follow later. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:52, 30 September 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.

Years and decades in Greece (until 1820)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 9#Years and decades in Greece (until 1820)

Category:Films based on Marvel Comics characters before the MCU[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 14:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary definition and non-defining. Several non-MCU Marvel films are still being made. ★Trekker (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the criteria, this just a list of films based on Marvel characters released prior to May 2008, which is an arbitrary cutoff. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cutoff is not arbitrary. It represents the period during which these films could not have been part of the MCU at all. Films containing Marvel Comics characters but made outside of the MCU following the initiation of the MCU represent a choice by the production companies not to negotiate some connection of the properties, as was eventually done with the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies. Since the most recent of these has retroactively deemed the original Spider-Man movies as canon, the MCU has demonstrated the ability to do this for any of these. BD2412 T 17:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless you can provide sources showing that there were attempts by Marvel Studios and/or the other production company to make a Sony/Spider-man type deal for each non-MCU Marvel film post 2008, then claiming the lack of such a deal "represents a choice" is original research at best. When Fox was about to lose the rights to Daredevil, Disney offered to extend the license if Fox would return Galactus and Silver Surfer from the Fantastic Four bundle (see [1]) Note that there's no mention of a partnership - just a rights swap. I still see the May 2008 cutoff as arbitrary with no value. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StarTrekker: MCU films are thoroughly categorized as such, so it is useful to categorize those films that are based on the same intellectual property but are not part of the MCU. I would be open to expanding the category to include all non-MCU Marvel films including Marvel Comics characters, but I do think that there is a signficant distinction between those that were released before they could have been deemed MCU films, and those that were not. The sheer numbers are enough to have subcategories. BD2412 T 17:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category already does that, the MCU films don't need to have the "Films based on Marvel Comics" category since they already have a child category, your new category accomplished nothing.★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @StarTrekker: Which category already does that? There is no single category that I can find that groups Marvel Comics properties based on their status of being outside the MCU. BD2412 T 18:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already explained it, the fact that the MCU films category already separates MCU films from other Marvel films is easy to understand.★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's half of the equation. Where can I see the category that specifically lists these other Marvel films that are not MCU films? In other words, the 32 films that are currently in this category? BD2412 T 20:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Literally already explained this, you look at the "Films based on Marvel Comics" category, since the MCU category as a child category already excludes them from the parent category.★Trekker (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The contents of those categories do not reflect your assertion here. Category:Films based on Marvel Comics contains two films, Kick-Ass (film) and Kick-Ass 2 (film), neither of which qualifies for inclusion in the category I have created. The rest of these films are scattered in subcategories where they are commingled indistinguishably with MCU films. Category:Live-action films based on Marvel Comics contains only five films, plus a category for Blade, and the MCU itself. BD2412 T 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • What exactly prevents the Kick Ass films from being included? And realistically all non-MCU films can be in the live-action films category.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Strictly speaking, "Kick-Ass" is under the Icon Comics imprint. If all non-MCU films can be in the live-action films category, then this category should be merged there. BD2412 T 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Spider-Verse was a Marvel film that was neither live action nor MCU. I would support removing Kick-Ass from the "based on Marvel Comics" category, as the material is not owned by Marvel. I wouldn't oppose a category for "Films based on Marvel Comics set outside the MCU" (or something more elegant). Argento Surfer (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I strongly oppose that, things should not be categorized by what franchise they're not.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I can understand that, and it's unfortunate we don't have more positive phrase for it, but I think it's a legitimate subset of Marvel films that a reader might want to see in one place. I don't see an easy way to do that in that in the current category system. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied by MegaSmike46. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just like to share information that a category under discussion is now empty in case it affects decisions about deletions, mergers or renames. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Strictly speaking, MegaSmike46 recategorized all of these to Category:Live-action films based on Marvel Comics, which is better than not having a category for this group of works, but less satisfactory than having a category that specifies the relationship shared by these works. BD2412 T 05:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this category hadn't been emptied out, there would be about a dozen just from the 1970s and 1980s, including three Incredible Hulk films, three Spider-Man films, two Captain America films, and one each of Doctor Strange, the Punisher, and Howard the Duck. BD2412 T 05:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I can understand the persistence in addressing confusion between the MCU films and Marvel-based films not in the MCU, there are still films not in the MCU being made today, so I don't see how this category's specific title and select catalog of articles would really benefit in a way that the list of the Marvel-based films would not, given they denote which ones are and are not in the MCU in a detailed sense in the article and in the articles themselves, which one may argue is a more efficient means than rummaging through a category of every film that is not in the MCU than one which is only for the MCU films. More readers are likely to search within the article namespace than search for a categorization, especially not one this exclusive and selective in a set timeframe. If it is not part of something, what rationale warrants an interest or drive for it to be noted as such in a category? We don't state in the ledes of each pre-MCU film that it came before a latter franchise's existence. It is more encyclopedic to denote something for what it is, not what lacks in presence. Aside from that, the title of the category in question can also be interpreted in other ways. Instead of it being for release dates, it could be assumed for continuity, which is a technical and difficult subject for what pre-dates the MCU's existence, while the use of "MCU" in it is, generally speaking, used by those more aware of the subject, which this seems to be intended for rather than a casual reader where an article would suffice a more cohesive explanation. I can't find myself supporting this category's existence in what feels like a stretch to find a purpose in a limited and very selective grouping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 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_September_30&oldid=1115099473"