Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1[edit]

Category:People from Brentwood, Pennsylvania[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) 07:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 1 May 2021 (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:Albums recorded at A&M Studios[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 12:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nothing defining about an album being recorded at a studio where albums are recorded. Surprisingly, many albums in this category are compilations which means the songs were recorded for other albums made at the studio. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that bugs me, too. Most compilation albums are compiled of previously recorded material produced for other albums and the producers had nothing to do with the compilation itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The studio is matter of fact defining IF it's indeed the artists location of recording. Purge all those compilations you've been compaining about above. --Just N. (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These albums could have been recorded anywhere and it would have been the same album. Please tell me how Dark Horse is defined by it being recorded at A&M Studios per the guidelines at WP:CATDEF. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - it seems fairly standard to categorise an album by the recording studio, the producer and the record label. Oculi (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some studies have a particular "sound" that might be defining and others are more generic places. This seems to be the latter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you assume it's just hiring an arbitrary location with recording devices? No, your guesswork is not about reality. Have you ever been in a professional rec studio? A lot of musicians talk about recording studios that offer "atmosphere" (which elevates their creative spirits). Technical devices are the basal, but the recording engineers and even the landscape surroundings are important. Music is self-evidently not just another job of operating instruments and "sound" manipulating machines. So stop talking of "generic places". If professional studios were just only availability of high-end rec machines bands wouldn't book them! --Just N. (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. @Justus Nussbaum: You are right, some studios are liked and chosen because of their atmostophere, location and other reasons, some studios have a 'sound' which is notable, but this is a label-owned studio which means available to any label artist the label doesn't want to spend money on. So your opposition to deletion must be more than 'some other studios are notable. Yes, I have been in some recording studios and not everything I know about them is worthy of inclusion of WP! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2021 (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:Football and apartheid[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:Soccer and apartheid. ✗plicit 11:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We use "soccer" when referring to this sport in South Africa: Soccer in South Africa, Category:Soccer in South Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose South African article use a mix of the terms soccer and (association) football, and it's the South Africa national football team‎ (as is the category), which is run by the South African Football Association, and all the teams use FC i.e. football club. We shouldn't be defaulting to US-centric terminology, if anything we should switch most of that category to football, if you really want consistency. Also the league was called National Football League (South Africa), so football was obviously the term used at that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been debated a number of times at Talk:Soccer in South Africa. Each time, there has been consensus to use "soccer" in preference over "football" or "association football". See here, here, and here. In an RFC from Feb 2020, the consensus was to use "soccer": see here. This category is the only outlier in the Category:Soccer in South Africa tree; there is no reason for it to be different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a consensus for one article so far as I can see. I don't believe it has Wikipedia-consensus for changing every usage of football to soccer. And that would be entirely inconsistent with the subcategories for "National Football League" and teams ending in FC i.e. football club. Claiming consistency when trying to make it inconsistent from its subcategories.... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not claiming that all of those discussions constitute a "Wikipedia-consensus for changing every usage of football to soccer". I'm demonstrating through the AfDs that there is no consensus to use "football" in preference over "soccer" for the head article. The RfC was a broader discussion, and that was meant to apply to all articles. The question posed was this: "Should 'soccer' or 'football' be used in articles related to the sport in South African [sic]? Or should the unambiguous term 'association football' be used? Ideally, Wikipedia should use consistent wording in South African association football articles per MOS:TIES. Currently, the wording used is inconsistent across Wikipedia articles, including titles." The result was that there was a clear consensus to use "soccer".
        You keep citing the National Football League, but there was also the National Professional Soccer League (South Africa), so it's a mixed bag. I think it would be wise in cases of ambiguity or doubt to standardise names to match the head category and head article, and right now the head category is Category:Soccer in South Africa and the head article is Soccer in South Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support per nom. If opposers disagree, they should get the main Soccer in South Africa article and category moved, although that seems unlikely considering stadiums like Soccer City was where the final of the World Cup was played. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and the clear consensus developed on Talk:Soccer in South Africa, including an RfC the terms of which clearly extend beyond that specific article to the whole category tree. - htonl (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2021 (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:Video game characters in other 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I have taken the liberty to merge the six nominations into one. If that is undesirable after all, feel free to split it again. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete' per nom. Thank you, Marcocapelle for merging the six nominations. --Just N. (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEF. The fact that a character has appeared in any other form of media is not a defining trait of that character; it is just trivia and seems of dubious usefulness to the reader considering that there are a tremendous amount of AAA games with multimedia spinoffs of some sort, like comics and books. (These categories were also made by a banned user who showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:20, 16 May 2021 (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:Songs about Count Dracula[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) 01:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The members of this category are not “Songs about Count Dracula” but collate articles that mention him in the title, save for the 2 songs, of which neither are specifically about Dracula, therefore ignoring the term ‘defining’ from WP:CAT.
I had removed 2 musicals from this category, before I realised a further 4 were musicals, Dracula – Entre l'amour et la mort, Dracula – L'amour plus fort que la mort, Dracula (Czech musical) and Dracula: A Chamber Musical. Two of the entries are albums, Nosferatu (Helstar album) and Transylvania (Nox Arcana album).
This leaves us with just two songs, Bela Lugosi's Dead which is nominally about an actor who played Dracula and Monster Mash, which I assume mentions Dracula in the lyrics, but hardly defining when the song is also in Category:Songs about parties, Category:Songs about dancing, Category:Songs about films, Category:Songs about monsters, Category:Songs about vampires and Category:Songs about werewolves. Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:. I thought I had made the point that the two songs were not specifically about Dracula, so would fail WP:CATDEF, but I am not strongly opposed to them being moved to Works based on Dracula, even though I am of the opinion they don't belong there either. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2021 (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:Female impersonators by nationality[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency, all subcategories (except the Australian) are named "drag queens". Also, if renamed, the category should be re-parented. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is related to a broader category discussion at WikiProject LGBT, @Bearcat, Mathglot, and Bluerasberry: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in the previous examination, I felt that Wikipedia had no content or sources distinguishing the concepts, and that drag queens was the common name. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2021 (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.

Buddhist scholars[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; some purging may be required. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming and purging:
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge to avoid ambiguity. This is (or should be) about scholars specializing in Buddhism, not scholars of Buddhist faith who specialize in something completely different. The latter is suggested by the page header of the top category but that would be a clear violation of WP:OCEGRS. The proposed category names are in line with Category:Scholars of Islam. Some purging will be necessary, e.g. Chen Yuan (historian) does not belong in this tree, he was not a scholar of Buddhism.
This is related to this earlier discussion, though it is a different nomination. @Paul 012, Invokingvajras, Naddruf, JarrahTree, Anomalous+0, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2021 (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:Iranian military personnel promoted posthumously[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 all to Category:Iranian military officers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEFINING generally
The Iranian officers in these categories were generally killed in action like with Ahmad Keshvari, Gholamali Bayandor, and Ali Sayad Shirazi but the articles generally don't mention the promotion. In the US context, police officers killed in the line of duty are often promoted posthumously to increase the pension for the surviving family. I'm not sure if this is also an economic benefit or an informal award to those killed in action and there is no Posthumous military promotions in Iran article to provide cultural context. There are no equivalent categories for other countries under Category:Posthumous recognitions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I wonder about the merge targets, because many of the articles (insofar they mention a rank at all) mention the rank achieved in life, rather than the rank awarded posthumously. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a good point since the target categories might have the same WP:V issue since none of the articles I looked at mention the rank at all. Straight deletion might be a better option for now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's hypothetically defining, we still have a verifiability issue since the articles usually make no mention of it let alone source it. - 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:129th Field Artillery Regiment[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) 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT for the subcat and, for the parent category, WP:C2F one eponymous article
We have 47 regiments under Category:Field artillery regiments of the United States Army National Guard and this is the only one with a separate category, which would be fine if it was populated but there are only 3 articles total. The 1 article in the parent category is 129th Field Artillery Regiment. The 2 biography articles in the subcat are U.S. President Harry S. Truman and his aid, Harry H. Vaughan. Both were career military officers who serviced with multiple regiments and categorizing by each one would create category clutter. All three articles are well categorized so no mergers are needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there aren't any sibling categories yet and it is clearly not defining for the two biographies currently in the category. I do not have an opinion on whether building a complete tree by regiment would be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SmallCat. --Just N. (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2021 (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/2021_May_1&oldid=1026638019"