Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22
September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Category:Sexism in the Arab world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:Sexism in the Arab world

Category:LGBT rights in the Arab world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Category:LGBT rights in the Arab world

Category:Indian LGBT photographers[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT – unnecessary categorization. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:01, 23 September 2023 (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:8th-century Frankish rabbis[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A WP:NARROWCAT of limited use – not much room for expansion, and it's unclear if the subject of the one article was even Frankish per se. Delete and add the one article to both major parent categories. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:57, 23 September 2023 (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:Government of the Ghaznavid Empire[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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The subcategory is already in Category:People from the Ghaznavid Empire so a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you referring to the links I posted? Those are offices/posts the Ghaznavid government had. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 02:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:38, 23 September 2023 (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:Harvard University Department of Psychology alumni[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: Manual merge * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this is a particularly useful category (WP:OCTRIVIAL) and I don't really think that it is defining intersection of Harvard Alumni (Category:Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences alumni or Category:Harvard College alumni‎) and having a major in psychology (WP:OCNARROW). However, I'd love to be convinced otherwise. Mason (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A concern seems to be addressing the inclusion of BA recipients, which I could easily remove, as there were only a couple in the category. The BA degree is somewhat irrelevant since anyone can continue studying something else. However, the alumni category for graduate students could be helpful to see any trends, developments or connections regarding Harvard psychology. Also, the Harvard Graduate Alumni list is very long and challenging to navigate. That is why a list of the individual alums of the department of Psychology would also be beneficial. Schiller12 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although removing undergraduates solves some of the problem. I still think that the intersection is trivial from a category perspective WP:OCTRIVIAL, in addition to having a psychology major isn't defining WP:NONDEF. If you think a list is beneficial you can create a list, but a category isn't a list. Mason (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per Mason's rationale. We sometimes have separate categories for schools within a university, but essentially never for departments within schools. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:06, 3 October 2023 (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:IMAX venues in the United States[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 and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having an IMAX theater is not a defining characteristic for the overwhelming majority of the places included. Yes, Jordan's IMAX is an example that fits the category, but among those articles I checked, Garden State Plaza, Kennedy Space Center, Liberty Science Center don't even mention IMAX in the body of the article. All of these places may have IMAX available on tap, but the category does not appear to be defining. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the category isn't defining, then why was every item in the category already sitting in the generic ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:IMAX venues for years and years, without anybody ever having one word to say about it until I started subcategorizing that for individual country within the past 24 hours? If having an IMAX theatre isn't defining, then the parent category never should have existed at all, but it's existed since 2005 without anybody ever previously taking any issue with its definingness — but there's simply no argument to be had that "IMAX venues" itself was fine, and geographically subbing it is somehow the point where a new problem somehow arises, especially if you're only targeting the US category and not the Canadian or UK ones or the already-longstanding parent. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bearcat, you used the word KEEP, but you offered no argument for retention. Let me try to understand your "argument" by paraphrasing it with a shorthand substitution. There's shit in a category here in the United States. But there's also a category for shit in other places in the world along with a parent shit category. Nobody has noticed the shit since 2005 and because the shit has been sitting around for 18 years that makes it OK, besides no one has dealt with the global shit issue. While I do agree that we should deal with the entire tree, I also notice that Bearcat has not offered a single explanation for WHY the category is defining nor addressed the fact that multiple articles in the category can't even be bothered to mention that there is an IMAX theater in the place. I will be honest and point out that I had never noticed the category, until two days ago, when I saw this edit that changed an IMAX-related category. As soon as I saw that, I reacted. I sincerely apologize for doing nothing about this since 2005. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Imma stop you right there. If the category has existed since 2005, the explanation for that is profoundly unlikely to be "nobody noticed shit for 18 years", and infinitely more likely to be "the category actually is not shit in the first place". I'll grant that Wikipedians do sometimes fail to notice low visibility and low traffic articles for a decade or more, but categories are not low traffic, because they get actively navigated into and through on a regular basis and do not get overlooked for long if they're shit — so a category that has lasted that long is, by definition, unlikely to be shit. Accordingly, it ain't my job to have to build a case for why it isn't shit — you cannot prove a negative, after all — it's your job to prove that it is shit, and just asserting that it is so doesn't make it so. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bearcat, per Wikipedia:Defining, The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. Clearly, the test that needs to be passed here to merit retention is to demonstrate that being an IMAX venue is a defining characteristic of these locations. As I demonstrated in the nomination based on a review of most of the entries, other than the one article for Jordan's IMAX that is a small network of IMAX theaters, the remainder either mention the presence of an IMAX theater largely in passing or not at all. The category is not defining in any way and merits deletion root and branch throughout the world. I have fulfilled my burden. There is no statute of limitations on deleting a category, no mater how old it is; Bearcat, after nearly 1.4 million edits and almost 20 years you should be well aware of that. Please come up with anything other than asserting it has existed since 2005 as an argument for retention. Anything would be a start. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost no cases where an IMAX theatre would ever qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the larger institution that hosts and operates it — for very nearly all IMAX theatres, it's more appropriate for the theatre to be discussed within the article on the host institution rather than as its own separate article about the theatre as an independent topic. So if you'd like to go around creating a comprehensive set of redirects from "IMAX Theatre at [Institution]" to "[Institution]" so that the category can be moved to those redirects, then by all means go right ahead — but we have content about IMAX theatres in Wikipedia, and being an IMAX theatre is a defining characteristic of an IMAX theatre, and therefore we need a category that helps people find IMAX theatres. Whether that category should go on the article about the larger institution that hosts the IMAX theatre, or on a standalone redirect from "IMAX theatre @ Institution" to the institution is a different question that it isn't within CFD's purview to determine — but one way or the other, we do need a category that helps direct readers to IMAX theatres, because they are a thing readers are looking for information about. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
being an IMAX theatre is a defining characteristic of an IMAX theatre - yes, tautologically it is. But having an IMAX theatre is not a defining characteristic of a venue, hence this category shout not be slapped onto a venue, see my comparison with Pizza Hut in my !vote below. - Altenmann >talk 23:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then any venue which has an IMAX theatre, but is not itself an IMAX theatre, needs to have a redirect that goes from "IMAX Theatre @ Venue" to "Venue", so that the redirect can remain in the category, and the category can thus still serve the incredibly important purpose of remaining a comprehensive navigation tool to all articles that we have about any venue where an IMAX film can be seen while still accommodating your concern. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is evident that we should discuss the tree as a whole. The parent category is a mix of IMAX theaters (defining) and places that happen to contain an IMAX theater. Because of the former, the category tree as a whole should certainly not disappear. I am open to alternatives though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup the contents of the category and write a clear "statute" for the category. If the article is not about an IMAX venue then it does not belong to the category. Wikipedia writes about notable things, right? Now, Liberty Science Center is in the category? The article does not mention IMAX meaning there is no notability for Liberty Science Center IMAX, meaning it does not belong to this category. We don't include every mall that has Pizza Hut into Category:Pizza Hut, right? Then why we have to do this for IMAX? - Altenmann >talk 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged the additional categories and notified the creators. Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. I think they are right about this. IMAX is definitely a different type of theatre. And I can see readers wanting to find out where they are. Which is our focus - the readers. This is clearly a notable topic. If no consensus to keep, Listify whatever isn't already at List of IMAX venues. - jc37 23:27, 23 September 2023 (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.

Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Serbia and Montenegro

Category:Songs written for film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Category:Songs written for film

Category:Queer organizations & Category:Queer literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Category:Queer organizations & Category:Queer literature

Category:Wikipedians who like Lu & the Bally Bunch[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No article on Lu & the Bally Bunch -> no collaborative value in a user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 23 September 2023 (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.

Greater Republic of Central America[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 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in three categories. The Greater Republic of Central America existed from 1896 to 1898, not too many additional foreign relations articles can be expected for such a short time frame. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:13, 1 October 2023 (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.

Judaism in the Arab world[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: Split * Pppery * it has begun... 00:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Religion in the Arab world, to complete the splitting of Category:Jews and Judaism in the Arab world. Note: I have chosen West Asia rather than Middle East for the last one as it includes Azerbaijan. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 23 September 2023 (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:Big Sugar 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: rename to Category:Big Sugar (band) albums. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Big Sugar redirects to Sugar industry. the article on the band is at Big Sugar (band). Jeeputer Talk 07:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:12, 1 October 2023 (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:Science centers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#Category:Science centers

Category:Sieges by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Category:Sieges by country

Category:Expatriates in Overseas France 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merging into the parent because there's only on category here Mason (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:42, 23 September 2023 (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/2023_September_23&oldid=1180074339"